John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to bring the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025 before the House today. Members will recall the size of the Planning and Development Bill 2024, which was enacted last year. Many of us worked extensively on that legislation, both at the joint Oireachtas committee and in both Houses. While the implementation of this Act is a key priority for the Government, it is important that the planning system remain agile and responsive to issues. This is why I am bringing this Bill forward today. I acknowledge the extensive work of my officials who undertook the preparation of the legislation that is before us.

Before I get into the details of the Bill, it is important that I set out the work done since the 2024 Bill was enacted. As many Deputies will be aware, given the scale of the 2024 Act, it is necessary to implement it on a phased basis to facilitate the transition from the arrangements under the current Act to those under the new Act. Two key areas of the Act have been commenced so far. First are the provisions to enable the establishment of An Coimisiún Pleanála, which introduced a comprehensive organisational restructuring that will result in a modernised planning body, fit for the 21st century and with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Separately, provisions to enable the identification of sites for urban development sones, UDZs, provide for an updated and more flexible approach to the planning and delivery of areas with significant potential for large-scale development and the associated necessary infrastructure, replacing the current provisions that enable the creation of strategic development zones. Further key areas of the Act will be commenced over the remainder of this year, particularly Part 3 relating to the national planning framework, NPF, national planning statements and development plans. Behind the scenes, my Department is preparing new regulations to accompany the 2024 Act and working closely with local authorities and other key stakeholders. A detailed implementation plan has been published that includes a commencement schedule for the Act and a range of initiatives to support training and engagement for the planning sector in preparation for the phased transition to the new legislative framework.

A key element of this work is the review of the current exempted development regulations, which is under way. The majority of our current exemptions from the need for planning permission have been in place since 2001 and it is important that we take the opportunity to review them as part of the development of the new regulations.

Central to this is the need to take account of changing domestic needs and the implications of adapting to climate change, including measures to improve resilience as well as revise standards for infrastructure reinforcement that take account of new and emerging demands. From a housing perspective, I am looking to make it easier for people to adapt their homes to their lifestyle, whether that is by allowing detached units in rear gardens, subdividing existing housing for multigenerational living, or making it easier to upgrade homes.

Another important consideration is the need to deploy resources both technical and administrative within the planning system in the most effective manner and to reduce, where appropriate, the need for planning permission for minor developments. To date, there has been extensive engagement with Departments and key infrastructure providers and their proposals are being considered as part of the review. A wider public consultation will commence very shortly and members of the public, State bodies and all other parties will be able to have their say before the regulations are finalised. The revised regulations will come into effect when Part 4 of the Act has commenced, however it may be necessary to prioritise measures around slurry storage and detached modular homes ahead of Part 4 commencement.

While reforming our planning legislation is key, we must also look at resourcing across the planning system. That has been raised by many Deputies over the past number of weeks. This is being addressed in parallel and a ministerial action plan is being implemented, with five key theme areas to enhance the capacity of the local government system and An Coimisiún Pleanála, as well as other key measures.

Government has also approved and published the revised national planning framework, which will create the conditions for accelerated housing delivery across the country. It will give clarity to local authorities on translating the revised housing requirements at a national level to local development plan level in order to identify the quantum of zoned land that will be required to increase our housing output. In this regard, we will be giving this detail to local authorities very shortly but in the interim, the Minister, Deputy Browne, has written to local authorities advising them to commence the variation process.

That brings me to the measures I wish to introduce as part of this Bill. The Government is committed to enabling the delivery of much-needed housing and addressing any issues that arise as quickly as possible and in a proactive manner. There is evidence there are a significant number of planning permissions for housing that are due to expire shortly that have not yet commenced. While planning permission is an essential step in any project, there are other factors that may impact on the commencement of a project, such as the availability of development finance, other economic factors such as market viability, infrastructure constraints, or phasing. Permissions of all types have also been delayed due to judicial review proceedings, which were outside the control of the holder of the permission but in many cases have resulted in a minimum time left to commence the development once a judicial review has concluded.

The substantial increase in judicial reviews has had an impact on larger developments in particular. For example, the number of all legal cases involving An Coimisiún Pleanála has grown from 41 in 2018 to 143 in 2024. Residential data for the Dublin region for the end of 2024 also highlighted these issues, when there were 40,112 uncommenced residential units on 265 wholly-inactive development sites within Dublin. Of these, the average time period that remained to estimated permission expiry date was 2.9 years. It is estimated that approximately 15,000 of these units are due to expire within the next two years. An Coimisiún Pleanála figures show that just under 19,000 units over 52 sites were either subject to judicial review and subsequently permitted, or remain in judicial review over the past five years. Of these, almost 16,000 units have been permitted notwithstanding the judicial review process and just over 3,000 units are still subject to ongoing proceedings. In all of these cases, the duration of the permission has been eroded due to judicial review proceedings. This Bill will address expiring permissions to encourage their activation through focused and timebound measures.

The Bill amends section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to allow holders of permission for housing developments that have not yet commenced to apply for an extension of duration of the permission for up to three years, provided that an EIA is not required. Currently, an application for an extension of duration can be made only for developments that have been commenced and are substantially complete. By allowing holders of permissions to apply before the commencement of the development, it will address the issue of permissions that do not have enough time left to commence and be substantially complete before applying for an extension. Such an application will only apply to housing developments with fewer than two years left on the duration of the permission.

The application for the extension of duration must be made within six months of the commencement of the legislation and the development must commence within 18 months of the commencement of the legislation. This is to encourage the activation of the development and the delivery of additional housing in line with existing permissions. A further application for an extension of up to two years may be made once the development is substantially complete. This is to allow time to complete the development. Where there is more than two years left on the duration of the permission, there is still adequate time for the development to commence and an application for an extension to be applied for in the normal manner.

Section 42 of the Act of 2000 will expire in October 2027 as the Planning and Development Act 2024 provides that it will continue to operate as a transitional measure until three years after the passing of the Act. At that date, the extension of duration provisions in the Act of 2024 will come into effect. On that basis, this new provision will also expire in October 2027.

The Bill extends the judicial review provisions of the new Act. Section 180 of the 2024 Act provides that the holder of a permission can apply to suspend the duration of the permission while it is subject to a judicial review. The aim of this provision, which only applies to new permissions, is to ensure that time is not lost on a permission where it has been subject to judicial review and that the full duration of the permission is available if the permission is upheld.

This Bill introduces provisions that allow holders of all permissions that have already been through the judicial review process to apply to a planning authority for a retrospective suspension of the permission for the period of the judicial review. At the moment the clock does not stop on a duration when the permission is subject to a judicial review. For example, if a permission granted in July 2022 was subject to a judicial review which took two years to complete, but in respect of which the decision was upheld, it would now get those two years back in terms of time left. It is appropriate to allow this retrospective suspension as the delay due to judicial review was outside the control of holder of the permission. In almost all cases where a permission is subject to judicial review, no development takes place while the judicial review is under way due to the risk that the permission can be overturned. However, this provision will not apply in the very small number of cases where development did commence. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, will take Members through the rest of the provisions.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In addition to the provisions the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, has outlined, the Bill also provides for amendments to the Act 2024 to clarify transitional arrangements as the planning system moves from operating under the 2000 Act to the new Act. The following approval of the revised national planning framework 2025, which will facilitate the delivery of in excess of 50,000 additional new homes per annum, there is an urgent need to ensure the updated housing requirements can be incorporated into the planning system as quickly as possible.

Local authorities will be required to update their current development plans over the coming months. Local authorities need clarity that this can be done under the 2000 Act while the new Act is commenced.

To provide the necessary clarity and certainty, a number of transitional amendments will be made to the Act of 2024. These transitional provisions will provide that development plan variations commenced under the Act of 2000 can continue under that Act when the relevant provisions of the Act of 2024 are commenced, with a similar provision for the local area plans that have been commenced under the Act of 2000. The provisions will also ensure that prior to the commencement of the provisions in the Act of 2024 on development consents, that applications assessed under the Act of 2000 shall have regard to the national planning framework, ministerial guidelines, regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans and local area plans continued in force under Act of 2024. This is necessary to allow for the phased commencement of the Act of 2024. The Act already includes transitional amendments for a number of different processes reflecting the principle that any process commenced under the Act of 2000 continues under the Act of 2000, even if the relevant provisions in the Act of 2024 are commenced.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill, which consists of three Parts.

Part 1, that is sections 1 and 2, contains provisions of a general nature, including definitions.

Part 2, which is sections 3 to 15, inclusive, amends the principal Act, which is the Planning and Development Act 2024, hereafter the Act of 2024.

Section 3 is a transitional measure that provides for any guidelines, other than specific planning policy requirements, issued under the Act of 2000 and continued in force under the Act of 2024 on the commencement of Part 3 to be regarded in decision-making processes under the Act of 2024.

Section 4 provides for a report to the relevant regional assembly setting out progress made with regard to the regional spatial and economic strategy. This ensures that local authority reports continue to be prepared one year in advance of a regional assembly report.

Section 5 is a transitional measure to provide for a regional spatial and economic strategy made under the Act of 2000 and continued in force under the Act of 2024 on the commencement of Part 3 to be regarded in decision processes under the Act of 2024.

Section 6 disapplies section 56 of the Act of 2024 for development plans made or varied under the Act of 2000 and continued in force under the Act of 2024.

Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, are related. These are transitional measures to allow for the assessment of any variation to development plans made under the Act of 2000 and continued in force under section 68 of the Act of 2024, or any development plans made or varied in accordance with section 69 of that Act. This will allow variation of such plans to be assessed with respect to the variation only rather than the criteria in the Act of 2024.

Sections 8 and 9 make consequential amendments to sections 64 and 65 of the Act of 2024 to update cross-references.

Section 10 is a transitional measure to provide for a development plan prepared under the Act of 2000 and continued in force under the Act of 2024 on the commencement of Part 3 to be regarded in decision-making processes under the Act of 2024.

Section 11 provides that where the making of a development plan or a development plan variation has commenced under the Act of 2000 prior to the commencement of Part 3 of the Act of 2024, it may continue under the Act of 2000, notwithstanding its repeal, and it is to be regarded in decision-making processes under the Act of 2024.

Section 12 deals with local area plans and provides that when the making or amending of a local area plan is commenced under Act of 2000, before the commencement of Part 3 of the Act of 2024, it may continue under the Act of 2000 and that variations to existing local area plans that are continued in force under the Act of 2024, may be made subject to the provisions of the Act of 2024. It further provides that local area plans shall be regarded in decision-making processes under Act of 2024.

Section 13 relates to judicial reviews. This section extends the pause of the duration of permission during judicial review proceedings to permissions granted under the Act of 2000 and subject to judicial review under the Act of 2000. It provides that where a permission was or is subject to judicial review, the holder of the permission may seek a suspension of time for the period the judicial review was or is ongoing. Retrospective applications for suspension of duration may be made in respect of active permissions where a judicial review has concluded, provided that the person applying declares that development did not substantially commence, which excludes works for the maintenance, security or protection of the development site, while the judicial review was ongoing.

Section 14 amends section 303(3) of the Act of 2024 to clarify that the application of section 50B of the Act of 2000 to decisions under the Act of 2024 ceases to have effect on the commencement of Chapter 2 of Part 9 of the Act of 2024. This section also amends section 303(4) of the Act of 2024 to clarify that the application of sections 50 and 50A of the Act of 2000 to decisions under the Act of 2024, ceases to have effect on the commencement of Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Act of 2024.

Section 15 is consequential to the amendment proposed in section 16 and updates cross-references to reflect the proposed new section 42(1A) of the Act of 2000.

Part 3 amends the Planning and Development Act 2000, hereafter Act of 2000, and provides for the extension of duration of permissions.

Section 16 amends the Act of 2000 to enable an extension of duration of up to three years to permissions for housing developments that have not yet commenced and have less than two years remaining on the duration of permission. To encourage activation of housing development, the application for the extension must be made within six months of the commencement of the legislation and the development must commence within 18 months of the commencement of the legislation. In line with existing provisions, a further application for an extension of up to two years may be made once the development is substantially complete. An extension of duration may only be granted where an environmental impact assessment, EIA, or appropriate assessment, AA, would not be required with regard to the proposed extension.

Section 17 is a technical amendment to ensure references in the Act of 2000 include references to similar terms in the Act of 2024 on commencement of Part 3.

There is an apartment guidelines amendment, which I will bring Deputies through. We will table a number of amendments in the Seanad, the majority of which deal with the transitional arrangements arising from moving from the 2000 Act to the 2024 Act. I will also table amendments relating to the new apartment guidelines, which were published today. Government is committed to ensuring that housing is delivered as quickly as possible and that we do everything we can to support developments that have planning permission. In this regard, certain modifications, in accordance with the provisions of the new apartment guidelines, to permissions for residential development that are granted on or after the date that the 2025 guidelines come into force, will be deemed to be permitted modifications. The permitted modifications will be very limited, with no change to the scale or mass of a development. Changes to the internal layout will be allowed in line with the new guidelines and certain limited external modifications to align with the internal changes will also be permitted. Developers will need to inform the planning authority of the proposed changes, and provided that they are in line with what is set out in the amendment, the modified permission will be granted. This will be a timebound provision for two years only, to encourage the activation of existing permissions, rather than developers having to seek a new permission in such cases. As the new apartment guidelines were only published today, it has not been possible to have this amendment included in the published Bill, but we will table it in the Seanad next week.

The Bill ensures that the potential that exists in the many permissions granted to date will be realised. We cannot let the potential for more housing slip away. With the support of the Houses, we hope to have the Bill enacted before the summer recess. We will seek to respond to any specific questions and engage further on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I am sharing time with Deputy Gould.

When Deputy Darragh O'Brien was the Minister for housing and he launched a once-in-a-generation review on consolidation of the planning and development Acts, one of his main arguments was that the 2000 Act had been amended so many times that the legislation was unwieldy, too difficult to understand and overly complex and, therefore, what we needed was a complete rewrite of the entire planning code, simplified and consolidated into a single Bill to allow planners and developers, public and private, to get on with their business, yet here we are, six or seven months after the passing of that very controversial legislation and only a fraction of its 637 sections have been commenced, and Government is already amending the legislation that was meant to be a once-in-a-generational change. That really speaks to the fact that so much of that controversial Bill was rushed. Large sections of it got very significant scrutiny from committee - the Minister of State and I were there - but almost all of the transitional mechanisms were rushed in as Committee Stage and Report Stage amendments with no external scrutiny or oversight. Whole sections of that Bill had not even been written. Some of them will be written by other Departments, such as the new cost protection regime to replace the current situation. It is just baffling that we are back here again, at the end of a Dáil term, dealing with complex technical planning legislation without adequate scrutiny.

The Minister asked us to waive pre-legislative scrutiny and if we had opposed that, he would have accused us of wanting to delay developments. That is a fact. While we waived the pre-legislative scrutiny, we expressed our deep dissatisfaction at the way in which this has been done. We have now learned from the Minister of State that amendments of an even more controversial nature, which have nothing to do with this legislation that I will come to in a moment, will be introduced in the Seanad. This is not the way to make good planning law.

I am not against the core principles of the Bill. Even when the Opposition is not opposed to what the Government is doing, we have a job to do, which is to scrutinise and listen to external experts and professionals to ensure the legislation, which will affect the lives of thousands and thousands of people for generations, is gotten right. It seems the very fact this Bill is before us shows it was not right the last time and that does not inspire confidence for the present or future.

With respect to the transitional mechanisms, it is hard to understand how these were not caught when they were being developed over a two-year period between 2023 and 2024. They are all very obvious and all I can suggest is the hardworking officials in the Department were put under unacceptable levels of pressure by the previous Minister and Government and stuff was forgotten or left out. That is not in any way a criticism of the officials - I do not envy their job in this particular area - but it is a criticism of the previous Minister. While the transitional mechanisms themselves are not objectionable, we have not had the ability to listen to the Irish Planning Institute, the County and City Management Association or public and private sector planners working in development as to how these will work in real time, which is regrettable.

Regarding the pauses on judicial review, JR, it is hard to understand, given there is a provision in last year's controversial Bill to allow for such pauses for all new applications, why somebody in the room did not think about whether it should apply to applications currently within the JR process. It is eminently sensible. This is a provision I have no objection to whatsoever but we spent two years reviewing the 2024 Act and it was not provided for then. This speaks to the ongoing concern we have in planning legislation. There needs to be two changes, however, to this section of the Bill and we have tabled amendments to provide for a limited form of public participation because these can be significant, particularly given the long period it takes to get something through judicial review. I am also strongly of the view the practice guidelines issued by the Master of the High Court should be put on a statutory basis. There should be timelines coupled with increases in the number of judges, backroom staffing and resourcing for the planning and environmental panel of the High Court to ensure JRs do not take two, three or sometimes four years. My amendments give the Minister the power to make regulations to do this, which I will discuss in more detail tomorrow.

With respect to extensions of duration, for some developers, though not all, there have been viability challenges that have led to some planning permission not being commenced. Again I understand what the Minister is trying to do and I accept him at face value. If there is a chance of those commencing, we do not want to lose them and therefore, the principle of this is not at question. The difficulty is, because we have not had time to get independent expert advice at committee, we have not been able to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny, the practical detail of this concerns me. Some of my colleagues will raise additional points with respect to this but there are three points I wish to make. Again, these speak to the amendments I will deal with tomorrow.

There needs to be public participation but not a full-blown public participation as in a planning application process. It should be some mechanism, possibly like the public participation opportunities available in Part 8 relating to decisions made by local authorities, whereby if people have pertinent information that should be considered and is relevant to the considerations of the extension, the planning authority should then be able to access that. I am talking about something time-limited but compliant with our Aarhus Convention requirements.

I am also concerned that there is no viability assessment. If somebody could not commence and had a viability problem, the question is: what will have changed to make the difference? The Minister might say the very bad decision the Government has announced today on inferior property design standards could be the thing that makes the difference. Somebody who is applying for the extension of duration should be required to submit a viability assessment setting out what it is that has changed and what is now available to them if they get this extension to allow them to build out. The reason this is necessary and could be done in a straightforward manner is we do not want people utilising this provision for purely speculative reasons or other reasons my colleagues will outline. If we had time to go through this more fully during pre-legislative scrutiny, we could have discussed flexible ways of doing this. Unfortunately, that opportunity was denied. An 18-month commencement period is too long. It makes no sense and I would like that shortened to six months unless there are extenuating circumstances. If they want to get commenced, they need to get commenced within six months of the extension of duration.

I am genuinely concerned, which I say every time we do planning legislation, that there is a question of what extent the absence of public participation opportunities in the substantive sections of this Bill are compliant with the Aarhus Convention. There should be some reporting mechanism on that. I am also concerned about the impact on JRs but crucially - and I urge the Minister to take this on board even though I suspect he will not accept my amendments tomorrow - when the extension of durations is passed and enacted, there has to be some reporting mechanism. The Department and local authorities must keep an eye on who gets the extensions, if they commence within the relevant period and if they avail of it or not. Some six-monthly reporting procedure would be a good way of doing this.

Having said all that, it should be clear to the Minister we are not opposing the Bill, although we will press our amendments. We will not stand in the way of the provisions in front of us, weak as they are, but I question the suggestion this will have a significant impact on commencements and supply. Ultimately, time will tell and we will judge that as we go. This is another example of the Government tinkering around the edges, making small changes and then spinning it outside of this Chamber as if somehow this is going to make a big difference. There are far more fundamental problems at the heart of the viability challenge, which the Government is not tackling. The cost of finance from Home Building Finance Ireland and others is far too high. The time it takes to get through planning, particularly through the planning board, is far too long and there is nothing for people looking for planning permission for less than 100 units. The board and local authorities still have far too few planning staff. Site servicing, particularly for complexes in urban density developments, is simply too onerous. If Government really wanted to speed up the commencement of higher density in our urban developments, including apartments, it would deal with those early stages of development and ensure the risks and delays associated with getting on site and building are dealt with, not with all these measures. I have heard nothing from the Minister at a committee meeting earlier or elsewhere that suggests the Government will address that.

The Minister indicated at that meeting that there could be some retrospective application of the new apartment design standards by way of an amendment in this Bill and that has been confirmed by the Minister of State, who has now left. I want to address that because it is pertinent to this Bill as we will deal with it as an amendment. That will be a hugely significant amendment. I imagine the justification for this is to avoid somebody who has planning permission having to go back in for new permission to avail of the new inferior design standards. However, will it apply, for example, to applications currently in the planning process that have not yet been subject to a decision? For example, Hines had a controversial planning application on Clonliffe Road, which was subject to appeal to the board and then judicial review. It was struck down by the courts and the company has spent the intervening period producing a new application. I was recently on site at the request of the developer to view it. Unlike the original application, it has completely adhered to the city development plan in terms of the percentage of studios and one-bedroom apartments, the percentage of dual-aspect units and the cultural space. Hines submitted its revised planning application today, which I discovered as I was sitting down and looking at the news. If Hines has submitted that planning application today, which is fully consistent with the development plan, and it is granted permission, will the company be able to avail of this new proposed retrospective application?

I understand that it will have to be within the existing mass of the permission. However, can they revert from 50% to 70% one-beds and studios, can they halve the percentage of units that would be required to have dual aspect and, of course, will they be able to remove the cultural space? This is a crucial question that people need an answer to. If I am trying to judge that application today and, all of a sudden, I am told they will have this option of retrospectively and substantially changing the topology, configuration and use, then that is a challenge. I suspect it is a challenge that may be an unintended consequence but, again, this is what happens when you rush complex planning legislation.

Likewise, I am genuinely frustrated that we are being told there will be even more transitional mechanisms that will get no scrutiny whatsoever. I suggest that, if possible, we get a private Teams briefing as a matter of urgency with the officials to go through all of the amendments. We will not get to see some of the amendments until the Seanad stage, although I presume we will get a short amount of time to come back here when they pass through the Seanad. That is a wholly unsatisfactory way of doing business.

I will not deal with the substantive issue of the apartment design standards because I dealt with that in committee today and it is not pertinent to the Bill. I get the sense the Government is essentially now accepting that its own housing plan has failed over the last number of years. It is attempting to suggest that what it is doing is somehow a radical change of course from its own failing housing plan. However, what the legislation in front of us today tells us is that it is business as usual. It is more piecemeal, last-minute and rushed tinkering around with a planning system that we all know is not properly resourced or properly functioning in the interests of society or public and private sector developments. Of course, what this tells me is that this is not going to have the impact the Minister claims. It is not going to see a significant increase in the delivery of much-needed homes. The homes that we will see delivered will be of a lower standard, smaller and with less natural light and less amenity, but they will also be far more expensive.

I do not think the Government understands the actual causes of the viability challenges, many of which have arisen directly as a result of policies implemented by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael over a number of years. The new apartment design standards were published today and the amendments will be dealt with in the debate on this Bill later in the week. This is the third time the Government has sought to reduce the standards for apartments yet, all the time, the cost of delivering apartments has increased, not only because of that but in part because of that. This legislation does not inspire me. It does not give me confidence that the Government has any sense of where it is going. Some of the measures are not objectionable, although they are poorly drafted, in my view, because it has been rushed. We will seek to amend those. Ultimately, however, we will not oppose the Bill here or at the Seanad stage. I ask the Minister, particularly given the significance of the amendments that his colleague has outlined, if we can get a briefing from the officials either this week or on Monday of next week to go through those. That would at least give us some sense of what is being proposed, inadequate as the time allowed for scrutiny is.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I sat in the housing committee with the Minister of State last year when the planning Bill was pushed through. We warned at the time of the consequences when the Government rushes through complex and serious legislation. Here we are now, 12 months on, trying to fix the errors. Why is there always a rush when dealing with complex legislation? Instead of learning from the mistakes of the past, the Government is pushing this legislation through with no committee oversight or pre-legislative scrutiny. Once again, the Government is trying to rush through planning legislation without giving enough time for security or allowing experts in the field to analyse it and point out unforeseen circumstances that the Minister or the Department did not see. What we do not want, but what I think will happen, is that in 12 months time, we will be back here again with more legislation to fix the problems in this Bill because it has been rushed.

The Government has spent time trying to scapegoat and blame everyone else for the housing crisis. It is trying to blame the planners and it wants to hear from them. It is too busy trying to scapegoat people. Uisce Éireann is a great crowd to blame because it can be blamed for everything. Do not get me wrong. It has a lot to answer for, but that is because of years of neglect and underinvestment. Even now, when Uisce Éireann is looking for €2 billion to make sure there is water to deliver the housing we need, that money still has not been granted. Local authorities are another great one for backbenchers to get up and blame, while forgetting that the parties opposite have been in government for ten and 15 years, respectively.

The Government tries to focus the blame on the Opposition. The usual question from the Government is to ask where the solutions are. Then, every week or second week, we bring forward constructive solutions that we hope the Government will take on board, and it does not. It is time to stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility.

Tens of thousands of homes could be built in this State. They have planning permission right now but, instead, the land is being used for speculation and no building is happening. I will give an example from Cork. The Good Shepherd convent site, which had been idle for years, got planning permission in 2017. The planning permission was granted but nothing has been built since. They got the planning permission because it made the site more valuable and then they flipped it for more money. It was about speculators making profit. Just to let people know, that site has been burned down numerous times and the building has been destroyed. I think of the people who live around it. I think of the consequences for firefighters and first responders who have had to go out to that site constantly, putting their lives on the line while speculators are laughing all the way to the bank.

We agree there are circumstances where planning permission can be extended but we need accountability. We need to know why developers are looking for an extension. We want homes built and we want delivery. What we do not want is further speculation and what we cannot allow is that potential homes are not built. To have uncommenced planning permissions is costly and a huge barrier to delivering homes that people desperately need. I think of all the funding that has gone into the granting of planning permission, whether in regard to the planners, the local authority, the technology, the newspapers or the communities. At the same time, local communities are making submissions and engaging in good faith, and they want to see development. They want to make sure that it is sustainable development that is best suited to their community. This takes up a lot of time at public meetings, committees and draft submissions and, therefore, once planning is granted, the expectation is that houses will be built. Instead, developers speculate on the land and try to flip it.

The problem is that this leaves local authorities and utility companies in a very difficult position. Where there is a limited capacity and that capacity has been allocated to a planning permission, it means future or other planning permissions cannot go ahead. It then becomes a blockage to delivery. That is why, when planning permissions are in place, we need them to be delivered.

We want to come up with solutions. We want this to deliver. I believe this is a missed opportunity by the Government. What we should have had is more emphasis on time, financing, resources, local authority planning departments and the resourcing of An Bord Pleanála. The Minister has missed a shot here.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his statement, although, unfortunately, I did not hear it. The Bill is not in the summer legislative programme. We have not had any pre-legislative scrutiny, which is a missed opportunity. We should have had more time to hear from the planning experts in this regard. Given that we are taking Second Stage of the Bill today and Committee and Remaining Stages tomorrow, we believe this is far too little time to consider the ramifications of legislation with this amount of detail. Much damage has been done to the planning system in this country by rushed and flawed legislation rammed through by Governments in order to clear the decks, either before a recess or before an election.

The Minister stated in his press release that this Bill is about getting things moving.

5 o’clock

While there is evidence that there are several permissions that are due to expire shortly, the fact is that in most cases this Bill will not do what the Minister claims it will. The primary barriers to the delivery of housing in this country will not be solved by an extension of planning permissions and this Bill will do little other than allow developers a blanket extension of time with no incentive or otherwise to force them to commence within that period. Certain sites with a short remaining planning duration that are earmarked for housing delivery should have the ability to apply for a planning extension for an extremely limited duration. Section 16 of Part 3 of the Bill amends the 2000 Act to enable an extension of three years for developments that have not commenced, with less than two years remaining on the duration of the permission. However, it does not set out any specific provisions beyond that the development must commence within 18 months of the commencement of the legislation.

While I agree that there may be a need for a short extension of remaining planning to guarantee certainty for financiers, there is nothing within this Bill that will oblige developers to explain or account for why they have not commenced the development or, more importantly, when it will be completed. Developers should have to furnish more detail and agree a timeline with the planning authority as to why, first of all, they did not commence the development and when the development will be finished to avail of an extension. For generations, developers have been happy to accumulate land and sit on it. The residential zoned land tax was the measure that we were told would stop this but it was delayed repeatedly, and not by evidence. If it had been implemented as and when intended instead of being delayed, quite possibly we would not have found ourselves here.

Let us be clear. This Bill is being introduced at the behest and for the benefit of property developers. While this Bill allows holders of permissions to apply for an extension in advance of a commencement of the development claiming that it will address the issues that exist whereby permissions effectively lapse because they do not have sufficient time left to commence and be substantially complete, it does not require developers to submit any reasoning as to why they have not developed the site.

Once sites have been granted permission, developers should be forced to build on them. They have every reason to resist this because they do not want house prices to fall but the Government must force their hand. The former Minister, Deputy O'Brien, mooted introducing a use-it-or-lose-it clause in the previous Dáil during the debate on the Planning and Development Bill 2023 but quietly shelved the proposal in the 2024 Act.

Much of the uncertainty around planning in this country has been caused by successive Governments that have introduced new national plans with new or different objectives that an application to extend or alter the original permission may contravene. We know undeveloped sites with planning permission appreciate as time passes, with many being bought and sold over and again. We also know that there was a 50% drop in planning applications across three Dublin local authorities last year, with commencements for new homes falling to the lowest level in nearly a decade earlier this year. That is despite a skewing of the data arising from a surge in commencements in 2024 due to developers rushing to avail of water and sewage connection waivers.

We also know that the main barriers to housing delivery are primarily those involving viability, financing and infrastructure, which brings me to my next point, relating to the provision in the Act to suspend the duration of permission due to judicial review. The number of homes being objected to due to judicial review is estimated at only 7,000 spread over approximately 250 cases, which is a relatively small amount compared with the 80,000 to 100,000 homes permitted but unbuilt. Flawed legislation, such as the strategic housing development legislation, has clogged up the system and, in turn, made judicial review almost another stage in the planning process.

Judicial review is a fundamental function of the court under the Constitution and there is a dangerous perception in Irish public commentary to exaggerate the scope of judicial decisions and to perceive that court decisions are driven by ideology. In fact, judicial review is more often used by elected officials, in this House and beyond, as a scapegoat to excuse people from the consequences of their ill-advised policies.

While the aim of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill might be to preserve the viability of thousands of dormant housing permissions by introducing additional flexibility for developers, it will not materially affect the delivery of housing in this country. Completions in 2025 are expected to decline by 40% compared with 2023 levels. Even with projected increases in 2026 and 2027, output is likely to remain nearly 50% below estimated need. There is evidence there are a number of permissions for housing that are due to expire shortly that have not yet been commenced and there have been calls for an extension to all current permissions, and this is effectively that.

I am worried about the approach of ramming through the Bill with only two days to consider the amendments, in particular in the context of the Aarhus Convention, which, the Government says, the 2024 Act is compliant with. I note an amendment in relation to this, because there are other outside bodies and interests that say the 2024 Act is not compliant with the Aarhus Convention. I particularly welcome the amendment in relation to that.

People do not go to court for the fun of it. I believe that nobody wants to take judicial review cases. We need to make good decisions that reflect proper, open and transparent public participation where the public can have their say as well as reflecting our obligations under national and international law and if this is done correctly, we will make better decisions and, in general, we will not end up in court.

There is a case for a very short extension of time in limited circumstances but this Bill is far too broad, with minimum consequences for developers for delaying development on land with planning permission.

I regret that this Bill is being, as I said at the outset, rammed through in such a short period with minimal time to consider properly the implications and the ramifications of this and to take pre-legislative scrutiny, which would have made this a stronger piece of legislation.

Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the publication of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025. I have listened to some of the Opposition speakers about it and wanting a longer time to discuss it but, in essence, this Bill is about extending the existing permissions and we should not want to take longer to do such a thing because if those permissions expire, it will be the same people who are objecting to the amendment Bill who will also condemn the Government. It is important for us to keep a focus on that.

This is a practical and timely piece of legislation focused on one objective, getting homes built. It does two key things. First, it allows the holders of planning permissions for housing developments with less than two years left and not yet commenced to apply for an extension of up to three years. Second, it makes sure that time lost due to judicial reviews does not count against the duration of that said planning permission.

It is a commonsense intervention. In too many cases, we have seen planning permissions run out, not because the builder failed to act but because legal proceedings delayed progress. At the end of 2024, over 40,000 residential units in Dublin sat uncommenced across 265 inactive sites. Approximately 15,000 of those are at real risk of expiry in the next two years. We simply cannot allow viable homes to lapse on a technicality. That is not in the interest of young families, renters or, indeed, local communities who come to all of us across the House crying and giving out that there is not enough housing. For us in this House who want to champion housing and want to see more housing delivered, it is simply unconscionable to say we will let all those planning permissions expire and also at the same time say that there is not enough housing being developed.

My party, Fianna Fáil, has always said its priority is to deliver housing and that means cutting out blockages, unlocking planning permissions and driving on construction. Nowhere is that more evident than in my own area of Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown. Across my county, we are not only meeting housing targets; we are on track to exceed them.

I have spoken previously about Shanganagh Castle in Shankill. Five hundred and ninety-seven homes are now nearly complete. That includes 200 social homes, 306 cost-rental and 91 affordable homes.

These are units that deliver a real mixed-tenure and community-focused development. Let us also take, for instance, Dundrum Central in the Dublin Rathdown constituency where 932 homes are progressing, with the Land Development Agency, under large-scale residential planning. We have made strong progress too on smaller schemes, such as Rockville Green, St. Laurence's Park, Ballyogan Rise and Roebuck Road, and major strategic areas such as the Cherrywood strategic development zone, which are taking shape with more than 1,600 homes already built and another 480 under construction. Cherrywood alone will eventually deliver more than 10,000 homes on the largest single urban development site in Ireland, with more planned along the Luas corridor.

All of this shows what can happen when local authorities and national government work together with clear planning guidelines, strong partnerships, support by local councillors, which is an essential element to all of this, and the right tools to deliver. This Bill gives us one of those tools. It protects thousands of potential homes from expiring unnecessarily. It gives breathing space to commence stalled developments and ensures the full value of existing permissions can be realised. Let us not waste the opportunity. Let us pass this legislation and keep pushing forward because we need these homes and we need them now.

Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this timely Bill, which has some very reasonable measures, and the clear action that has been taken by this Government to protect planning permissions currently in the system as we strive to increase the number of houses delivered in this country. From my point of view, as a younger Member of the House, it is an absolute priority for me to see the number of houses being delivered by this Government increasing, especially across north Tipperary and north-west Kilkenny, which I represent, but also nationally, where they are so desperately needed for young people looking to get a start in life. For working families who are paying very high rents, and struggling to find somewhere to rent or buy at an affordable rate, increasing supply is essential. To give the young, talented educated people abroad at present a reason to come home, increasing supply and the number of houses we are building in this country are also essential.

The House needs to take a long hard look at itself and the number of politicians who object to strategic infrastructure and housing developments at a time when we desperately need them, and whether these objections to energy, housing or wastewater infrastructure, or across the board, are appropriate. We need to ask ourselves whether it is the place of politicians to object within the planning system. I do not believe it is. We have seen some members of the public and Members of the House who attempt to act skilfully to frustrate the planning system to prevent developments that we so desperately need from going ahead. This Bill will help to ensure those developments are not lost while the legal process continues.

I will also focus on other planning issues while the Minister of State is before me. Modular or log cabin-style housing is an area he has taken an interest in and one I have brought to the attention of the House on numerous occasions. I hope the next time a planning Bill is before the House it will be on that exact issue. We are talking about the exemption in respect of backyard developments, but we should go beyond that. I have said it so many times here and I will say it again that we should allow planning permission for those log-cabin or modular-style homes, using modern methods of construction, to be built throughout the country. It is so frustrating, as a young person, to see the potential that is there, particularly in rural areas, where planning would be possible. If utilities, wastewater infrastructure, whether it is a sewerage system or connection to the mains, electricity and water are available, and appropriate planning is possible, those houses should be allowed. They use a new method of construction, at least in this country although not everywhere else, but it is a modern, possible and much more affordable method. I know of so many laneways in north Tipperary and north-west Kilkenny I canvassed where such houses are already. I worry for those families, especially younger families.

I am dealing with a case, without going into details, where for a young mother with two children, it is the only affordable home she could have built. She put it up and is now under pressure, but it is a perfect family home. The next time a planning Bill is before the House, I hope it will focus on that issue. I will continue to call for that. I ask the Minister of State to continue to work on that and prioritise it. It is not the solution to the housing crisis but it has the potential to be part of it, particularly, although not exclusively, for younger people.

I welcome the Bill. I hope it will be progressed as quickly as possible. It is a real and meaningful measure that will result in the protection both of planning permissions and thousands of houses that can be built. I thank the Minister of State for his work on it to date.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I had some queries on the technical aspects of the transitional sections of the Bill, but time does not allow me to go into them; four minutes is a very short time to debate a Bill such as this. However, on the general thrust of the Bill, there cannot be any serious objection to the notion, if we are trying to expedite the housing programme, that we try to save extant planning permissions.

The point was made that three and two years, or five years in total, is too long. I would prefer to see somewhat shorter times than that, but we must bear in mind it is at the discretion of local authorities. It is the local authority that will ultimately decide. A number of safeguards are built in. For example, the job must be done within a reasonable period. The local authority will have to satisfy itself of that. From listening to some of the contributions, you would think a developer's word will be sufficient and that the local authority will simply say that if it will be done in a certain period, that will be it, finito, and the developer will get the extension. That is obviously not the case.

There are many subjective aspects to the legislation, in the sense that each local authority will have discretion to decide when building commences, what a reasonable expectation of completion is, etc. It is undesirable that two different local authorities, or a number of different local authorities, could interpret those provisions in different ways. That was done in my part of the country, where two local authorities interpreted one provision in the recent planning Bill in two very different ways. That has caused a lot of difficulties. If the Minister of State is minded, or obligated, to bring in regulations on that, perhaps we can get some uniformity of approach through those regulations.

The Minister, Deputy Browne, is not here, but he will know from his previous experience, as I do, that judicial review is a perfectly legitimate process. It is recognised and constitutionally fireproof. However, it has been abused on certain occasions. The Minister will know that an applicant for judicial review can use various tactics to delay the process until time runs out. It is only right and logical that loophole be closed, as it were.

I will use the time left to bring two other matters to the Minister of State's attention. I would like him to come back to me on both. The vast majority of people in this country aspire to home ownership. All statistics show that but we know it anecdotally anyway. Unfortunately, some parts of the system seem to operate against increasing home ownership rather than the other way round. For example, regarding the local authority loan scheme as it is presently operated, I am sorry to say I have come across several cases where the repayments on the projected mortgage are less than the person is presently paying in rent. Yet, those people are being refused a local authority loan on the basis that they do not have a savings record. In other words, they cannot be trusted to pay less when for years they have been paying more. That does not make any sense to me.

I will also briefly mention the incremental tenant purchase scheme. We had a perfectly good tenant purchase scheme for about 75 years in this country. It was working very well. Then, the former Minister, Eoghan Murphy, decided, because it was working very well, that he had to fix it. When he fixed it, he emasculated it. Another former Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, brought in some reforms, which have improved the situation, but it is still more of an illusory scheme than a reality. I would prefer the tenant purchase scheme to be abolished completely rather than maintain the illusion of a tenant purchase scheme because it is clearly not working. I do not have the figures for how many people were approved for it, but I imagine it is only a trickle. Saying that pensioners, or those in receipt of a widow's pension or invalidity pension, etc., are entitled to avail of it is a shimmer and an illusion. It does not happen. They may technically qualify on the grounds they have an income of more than €11,500 a year from their pension, but when it comes to getting the loan to pay the non-discounted part of the price, nobody will lend them the money and their income does not justify getting a loan of a sufficient amount. I ask the Minister of State to look at those two points.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Bill is not as earth-shattering as was presented and may in fact not even deliver any new homes especially given the Minister's announcement at the weekend of new dog-box sizes. Very few developers will turn down the extra golden eggs laid by the Government for them and will start all over again. They will modify their plans rather than go ahead with plans and look for an extension as predicted in this, if they have been caught up in a judicial review. For years there has been a blame game about judicial reviews. Judicial review is quite an expensive thing for any residents' association to undertake, costing €50,000 at least. Most judicial reviews have been won on the basis of material contraventions of development plans. County and city development plans are one of the few democratic functions where elected councillors retain full power despite the fact that over the years many Ministers in this House and developers in particular would prefer the councillors not to have that power. I do not oppose the Bill because there is a logic to it, but I do not see it having the effect the Minister expects.

One of the issues with planning is the question of the Gaeltacht agus na treoirlínte pleanála Gaeltachta. Tá líon na gcainteoirí laethúla Gaeilge ag titim. Tá ceithre as gach cúig theaghlach Gaeltachta iompaithe ar an mBéarla agus tá an Rialtas ar nós Nero, ag fidleáil fad is atá Gaeltacht na hÉireann i mbaol báis. Tá bánú ar bhun sa Ghaeltacht toisc srianta pleanála agus géarchéim tithíochta agus níl faic a dhéanamh faoi. Gheall an Rialtas treoirlínte pleanála don Ghaeltacht mar réiteach. Sin a dúirt sé. D'aithin an Rialtas na fadhbanna agus gheall sé sin faoi Nollaig na bliana 2021. Theip ar na treoirlínte sin teacht ar an saol. Gheall sé iad arís sa chéad ráithe de 2022, roimh dheireadh 2022, go luath in 2023, i lár 2023, faoi Cháisc 2024 agus i lár 2024. Arís, theip ar an Rialtas. Dúradh ag an am go mbeadh na treoirlínte ag teacht go luath.

Sa bhliain 2022 dúirt an Roinn tithíochta go raibh na treoirlínte críochnaithe acu agus go raibh siad ag fanacht ar Roinn na Gaeltachta. Sa bhliain 2023 dúirt an Roinn sin go raibh na treoirlínte críochnaithe acu agus go raibh siad ag fanacht ar an Roinn tithíochta. Anois tá siad geallta faoi Nollaig na bliana 2025 ag an Aire, an Teachta Calleary, mar Groundhog Day nua, agus ansin beidh scagthástáil le déanamh orthu de réir dlí an Aontais Eorpaigh, agus comhairliúchán poiblí le déanamh ina dhiaidh sin. Bhí deis ann é seo ar fad a dhéanamh anuraidh san Acht um phleanáil agus forbartha nua agus theip air sin chomh maith. Diúltaigh an Rialtas do mholtaí Shinn Féin faoi phleanáil na ceantair Ghaeltachta agus ansin theip orthu an sprioc chéanna faoi phleanáil na ceantair Ghaeltachta a chur i gclár an Rialtais. Anois agus an Bille um Pleanáil agus Forbairt (Leasú) romhainn, níl faic molta sa Bhille faoin nGaeltacht. Tá sé fógartha maidir leis an reachtaíocht molta faoi chíos gearrthéarma - leithéidí Airbnb, atá ag slogadh siar na tithe sa Ghaeltacht - nach mbeidh feidhm ag na rialacha sin sa Ghaeltacht. Leanann an fidleáil ar aghaidh. Tá bréagadóireacht, moilleadóireacht agus neamhaird á dhéanamh ag Fianna Fáil agus Fine Gael ar fhadhb bhunúsach pleanála sa Ghaeltacht agus níl moladh déanta acu sa reachtaíocht atá os ár gcomhair inniu.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the smallest apartment the Minister of State has ever lived in? What was it like when he was living there? The idea that young people can slum it for a while in a dark small shoebox and build up to something better is deeply disturbing in many ways. The expectation is that young people and not-so-young people, people in their 20s, 30s, 40s or increasingly their 50s, will live in dark cramped shoeboxes. Those who are making this decision are not living in small apartments. They are likely to be living in houses. The reality is that it is one law and one set of housing for one group of people, while for the generations coming up behind, for those who cannot afford to buy a home and are forced to rent, it is a completely different standard.

We got rid of bedsits for a reason. ALONE which works with elderly people agreed with that at the time because the people who were living in one-bedroom apartments and one bedroom units - bedsits at the time - were vulnerable and older people. They actually need things like light and space. Increasingly with one-parent families, we see the need for space for children to come over at different points in their lives. Essentially the Minister is saying that having light and space is a luxury not a necessity, which is just not true.

The units that will be built - if they are built at all - as a result of the changes will be smaller and darker. They will lack the space that we see in other European cities. As a result of this, fewer two-bedroom and three-bedroom units will be built in developments. Instead there will be more studio and one-bedroom apartments in which, of course, people will be forced to overcrowd to cover the rent.

There is callousness and cruelty in this decision. I have raised it here before and was lambasted by a Deputy, who is not here today, for being sanctimonious - I think that was the phrase - for highlighting that there is something in the State's and Fianna Fáil's and Fine Gael's decision-making that it is all right to make decisions which affect future generations once it is not affecting the voter base of those who are living in a house now. Of course, they are failing to see that their voter base is increasingly older people whose children cannot move out and cannot afford to move out.

Why is the Government doing this? It is to have more units built which are unaffordable. Young people will not be able to afford them. It is an illogical policy because the idea that reducing standards will lead to reduced rents and reduced house and apartment prices is absolutely illogical. Developers and investors will simply pocket the difference because there are no requirements on them. They get to increase the number of units on the development and reduce the size with no requirement to have affordability or to reduce the price. The Government is essentially giving them a blank cheque to charge whatever they want, as it is doing with the rent measures. They can charge whatever they want and the Government will keep making changes for them. Where does it end? The Government is proposing that young people leave their childhood boxroom in their parents' house where they are stuck to move into another boxroom and pay €3,000 a month for the privilege.

Is this a measure that the Government will consider a success? How does it change? How does it reverse? How do we get to a place where people actually have apartments being built for rent at €800 a month? That is what it is in Vienna. Our aspiration, our policy, is to build apartments that cost €3,000 or €4,000 a month. Where does it end? There is no strategy of clawing back this deregulation. Surely the Minister is aware that once they are brought in, they are here to stay. As I said earlier, the Minister is unfortunately joining a long line of Ministers, including Alan Kelly who was the Minister for housing in 2015 who introduced measures which reduced sizes.

We did not see cheaper rents as a result. When the former Minister Eoin Murphy introduced similar measures, we did not see reductions in rents. At what point will the rents fall or be reduced as a result of these measures? It is deeply disappointing that the Government has made more changes that reduce and alter what it is to have a home in this country. A home, the most fundamental need that people have, is supposed to give them sufficient space and light and be a place where they can be themselves, have friends over and start or have a family but that is not what we are going to see built as a result of these regulations. This is going to have negative impacts down the line.

The Minister said that radical thinking is needed on housing. It is interesting that he has taken the word "radical". This was clearly used by the Housing Commission, which mentioned "radical measures" several times, but the only radical measure in the provisions to change rents and regulations is to radically increase the profits and returns that institutional investors will make from delivering apartments in this country. There is no radical change to reduce house prices or rents and there is no radical change to massively increase the delivery of affordable housing. Of course, what we are seeing is the failure to deliver affordable housing. The Government's policies on rent regulation and the changes to regulations will lead to higher rents and reduced home ownership. The policies make private, build-to-rent property accommodation even more profitable so rather than building homes for sale at affordable prices, land will be bought up, planning permission will be granted on it and what we will see is more investor-funded, build-to-rent accommodation, if it is built at all. It certainly will not lead to increased home ownership or to reduced rents.

I submitted three amendments to the Bill on behalf of the Social Democrats. They seek to create a specified zoning for affordable housing and to create a use or lose it clause for planning permission. Regarding the three-year extension that will be added on to planning permission, I want to clarify the current position. Currently, planning permission is valid for ten years and then an extension for another ten years is available. Under this Bill, and the Minister or Minister of State might correct me if I am wrong, the maximum duration proposed is ten years, with a further extension. The Minister of State is indicating that is not the case and I look forward to clarification on that. Is there a bonus extension of three years if a developer decides to sit on the site? I ask the Minister of State to clarify what the developer will get under the proposed changes.

I also ask him to respond on the use it or lose it measures. Did the Government consider these? If not, will it consider them? The Government is adding an extension to planning permission but has it explored the possibility of going for use it or lose it measures? It is as if the Government is telling people not to use their planning permission. Essentially it is giving them additional time but for what? This is additional time during which they can watch rents rise higher and land prices increase and they can sell these sites with the planning permission extended. By extending the planning permission time, the Government is essentially promoting further speculative development. This is the fundamental problem with the housing policy that has been delivered in this country for years, which is based on speculative development. We do not have the development of affordable housing; rather, there is speculative development. Huge numbers of planning permits exist but the land is not being built on. Where is the approach that will deliver more affordable housing?

The second amendment I tabled relates to the profits being made by developers. The level to which private developers and institutional investors are, and continue to be, subsidised by the State is really astounding. I refer to the croí cónaithe scheme and housing assistance payment. Now we have reports of developers gaming the system by circumventing the value limits of the help to buy scheme. There needs to be proper oversight of developers in receipt of State subsidies and that is why I tabled this amendment. It aims to increase transparency around profits made by property developers who receive State subsidies. The amendment would require these developers to publish annual financial statements and this would apply to developers benefiting from schemes such as the shared equity scheme. The amendment represents a step towards greater accountability and could impact land hoarding and speculation, which we know is ongoing in our housing market. It would be completely naive to think that developers and those who own land, including land with planning permission already on it, are building on the basis of providing housing that is actually affordable; they are not. Their aim is to maximise the return from their sites and land and this is speculative development. We should not have financial penalties under this Bill.

My final amendment relates to zoning for affordable housing. This is a key feature of housing delivery in Vienna. This is a model that the Government has cited as an inspiration in the past but it does not seem intent on implementing any measures that would emulate the Vienna housing model. Creating a zoning for affordable housing would mean that only genuinely affordable homes could be built on specific areas of land. For example, if industrial land was zoned for affordable housing, a maximum price per square metre would be set on the homes built on that land. This would ensure that these homes remain affordable for future generations, even when the initial occupiers have moved on. What is really frustrating is that the Government says the Opposition does not provide any solutions or alternatives and that all we do is criticise but here is one very specific measure, the introduction of a specific zoning for affordable housing, that would ensure permanent housing affordability is introduced into certain areas, as is done in Vienna. That would mean genuinely affordable homes could be built on specific areas of lands and in those areas, we would essentially be keeping housing affordable in perpetuity and not allowing future speculation on that housing or land. This is something that should be introduced.

The Government is using this Bill, the shambolic rent changes legislation and the deregulation that it is now talking about in relation to apartment standards to deflect from its own failures. Ultimately, that is what this is about. These failures are the housing policies of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael for over 40 years, which has seen the State moving away from the delivery of housing. Councils up and down the country built homes that working people could afford to live in, rent or buy but under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael we have had decades of the State moving away from the delivery of housing. This is the fundamental core of our problem. While the Government says it is returning the delivery of social housing to local authorities, the majority of the social housing being delivered is not actually being built or delivered by local authorities or not-for-profit housing bodies. It is being bought from the market. It is being bought from developers as turnkey housing or being leased. This is not increasing the capacity of local authorities or not-for-profit housing bodies to deliver housing. Local authorities need to be given the capacity to deliver social housing on a significant scale and, importantly, to deliver affordable housing for rent and for purchase.

I will turn briefly to my constituency. In areas of Dublin North-West plans for housing, including social housing, are being withdrawn or ripped up. I refer here to public-private partnership, PPP, housing projects. It is absolutely scandalous that we are now seeing a judicial challenge to those projects.

It is so frustrating. The language I want to use is not language I should use in this House but this is a complete shitshow as regards housing. The public-private partnerships were in place, were going to deliver and were going to start on sites weeks ago but the Minister decided to pull these projects. He had to know there would be judicial proceedings as a result of that decision. If he did not know, his officials need to be brought in. I cannot believe a Minister for housing with a legal background did not consider that there would be a judicial challenge to a decision to withdraw projects at the last minute when a preferred bidder had been selected. It is beyond belief. The State has spent €8 million on these projects. It is likely to cost significantly more if this judicial challenge is successful.

On top of that, these projects, which were going to deliver 500 social homes, are going to be delayed as a result. There is no doubt about that. Dublin City Council has made it clear that there will be significant delays with these projects. It will not be able to go forward with public contracts if legal proceedings are ongoing so not only do Dublin City Council and the local authorities in counties Wicklow, Sligo and Kildare, where these 500 social homes were going to be developed with works ready to begin on site, have to figure out ways to deliver these projects - direct build is the obvious choice and what should be done - but they also will not be able to go to public tender until the legal situation is clarified. This legal situation could drag on for months. We do not know. It could drag on for years. What is it going to cost the State?

A decision that was made on the basis of value for money because these projects cost too much is going to end up costing significantly more. Building costs are going to increase so the projects are going to cost more anyway. What an absolute shambles of a decision it was to withdraw those public-private partnerships without considering the potential for legal challenge. I assume that was not considered because, if it was, it will have to come out someday that the Minister made the decision to cut those projects knowing that it could potentially be subject to a legal challenge. Whether that was considered will have to come out. Either way, it is a scandal. It shows the complete disconnect from the need for social housing in communities like those of Ballymun, Wicklow, Sligo and Kildare that the Minister would play with these decisions because he might be brought before the Committee of Public Accounts at some point. It was a bad decision. It is clearly an absolute mess as regards these social housing projects. It also sets us up for future problems.

There is a complete lack of investment in our public sector's capacity to deliver housing. We need a step change. We need to do what we do in health and education and have the State provide public housing through building and financing, particularly through the homes for Ireland State savings scheme, which I have mentioned. Such a scheme would channel the €160 billion in bank accounts into this area. It would not be an SSIA scheme, despite how the Taoiseach and Minister have completely misunderstood our proposal. It would be similar to the Livret Ascheme in France. It would channel deposits to provide funding for social and affordable housing delivery on a long-term basis. That solution should be taken up.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before we move onto the next speaker, I welcome Michael Coyne and family to the Gallery. They are here at the behest of Deputy Heneghan. I hope they enjoy their afternoon in the Gallery.

Albert Dolan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the Bill and I will clearly and urgently make the case as to why this legislation is not only necessary but also overdue. We are in the middle of a housing crisis that affects every community in this country. It affects urban and rural, young and old, single people, families, renters and buyers alike. At the heart of this crisis is a basic mismatch. The demand for homes is outpacing our ability to deliver them. One of the core reasons for that delay is an overly complex, inconsistent and drawn-out planning system. Time and again, housing projects, including affordable and social housing projects, are delayed by a system that is too slow, too uncertain and too exposed to procedural challenges. Our planning code has become a battleground for paperwork rather than a roadmap to progress. In recent years, major housing developments have faced delays of 18, 24 and even 36 months due to judicial reviews or planning appeals. These are homes. They are not just homes, but homes that could and should already be built. This legislation seeks to bring that kind of inertia to an end by creating a faster, more coherent and more transparent planning system and framework that gets homes built more quickly while still protecting the public's right to be consulted and the environment's right to be safeguarded.

The Bill does three key things that are especially important from the perspective of housing delivery. It provides greater certainty for applicants and communities through the provision of clear development plans and timelines. It reforms the JR process to stop serial objections, which are often made by people with no local connection and without being based on the public interest. It strengthens An Coimisiún Pleanála with a clearer mandate, a modern structure and better governance, giving it the tools to make decisions faster and more fairly. This is not about bypassing communities; this is far from that. Public engagement will still be protected but we cannot allow a system where national housing targets are frustrated by a minority who can delay and derail vital developments with no accountability. If we want to meet Housing for All targets and deliver homes for the next generation, we must reform how we plan. No amount of investment or zoning will matter if we cannot get projects off the ground due to planning gridlock.

From my own experience of having spoken to planners, developers and, most importantly, young couples and families who are desperate to find a home, I know the call is consistent. We need clarity, consistency and speed. This Bill is a step towards delivering all three. Our planning system must be a facilitator of housing rather than an obstacle to it. This Bill will not solve everything overnight but it lays a critical foundation for a planning system fit for the scale of the challenge we face. If we are serious about building homes, we must be serious about getting this Bill through.

Michael Cahill (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have had many inquiries regarding back garden cabins from constituents all over County Kerry. They must be allowed to go ahead and they should also be available for rent. Local authorities should be able to adjudicate on small to medium-sized infrastructural projects by way of Part 8, even where environmental impact assessments are necessary, instead of such projects being sent to An Bord Pleanála. On rural settlement policy, we must get planning authorities to remove the zoning category of rural area under significant urban influence from all plans. It is discriminatory. At the very least, we must remove the word "significant" from the description. As a result of this zoning, there are issues around all towns and villages in my county, including Killarney, Killorglin, Cahersiveen.

Urgent action is required to address the lack of housing available across Ireland and local authorities are at the heart of the solution. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage must request and direct all local authorities to play their part in addressing the housing crisis. Local authorities urgently need to start granting planning permission for one-off housing. I again call on the Minister to request all local authorities to play their part. They can do this by amending their county development plans and area plans and by granting planning permission to all applicants who clearly demonstrate a rural housing need. Applicants who are from an area, who live in it, who work in it or who went to school in it should qualify for planning permission to build a home there. We are forcing planning applicants onto our housing lists by refusing one-off houses. This has the effect of making the problem worse. We must reverse this now and get to a situation where houses are available to those who need them most.

I am anxious to get housing units available for all. I have consistently urged the introduction of good quality modular houses to increase the supply available. Modular houses of a very high standard are available. They are economical to buy, build, heat and maintain, and they have a lifespan of up to 80 years.

Many people have told me they would be delighted with such a home. Young couples in Killorglin, Cahersiveen, Castleisland, Killarney, Dingle and Kenmare confirmed to me they would be more than happy with a modular home. They are a quick solution to what is a real crisis. We must free up land. We must relax planning requirements and introduce modular housing. I believe a marked improvement will be seen in early course in our efforts to house our people. Naturally, we need a mix of affordable, social and private, including low-cost sites. There is plenty of land and old buildings around Killarney available from the HSE. I urge the Minister of State to engage with the HSE with regard to acquiring this land. This land has been available for between 20 and 30 years, and the buildings are unoccupied for equally as long. My son, Councillor Tommy Cahill, has also raised the matter of modular homes and we will pursue this important issue for our people. I am a great believer in modular homes. We must grant them and address the planning laws accordingly. We must zone plenty of land, not just in our cities, but around all towns and villages, to give people options of affordable, social, private and low-cost sites.

The provision of wastewater treatment facilities is a huge issue. I mentioned before that €6 million was announced for Beaufort village more than two years ago. I have been informed it will take at least another seven years before there is a sewerage scheme there. Constructed wetlands are a cheaper and quicker solution. We have 40 unsewered villages in Kerry. A number of others, including my own village of Glenbeigh, have been at capacity for approximately 25 years. We must bring developers with us. They can and will provide wastewater treatment facilities that are up to an acceptable standard. I also believe we must grant planning permission for high-rise apartment blocks where appropriate. These are the planning changes required to help our people acquire a home, which is a basic right.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are in the middle of a deep and escalating housing crisis. House prices, rents and homelessness are all rising. Social and affordable housing targets are being missed again this year. Tá an ghéarchéim tithíochta ag cur todhchaí na Gaeltachta i mbaol ach fós níl na treoirlínte pleanála Gaeltachta feicthe againn agus níl faic déanta i dtaobh tithíocht inacmhainne nó tithíocht sóisialta a chur ar fáil do mhuintir na Gaeltachta inár gceantracha Gaeltachta. Government buries its head in the sand while rural communities are hollowed out, as young families cannot buy, rent or build homes in the communities where they were reared. An entire generation is locked out of home ownership, stuck in childhood bedrooms or overpriced rentals or forced to emigrate. There is no strategy to address the demographic crisis affecting rural communities.

This Bill is not in and of itself objectionable. The measures it contains are modest, in some cases necessary, but it will not solve the housing crisis. It is deeply misleading for the Government to present it as anything close to a serious response. The real and immediate structural problems driving the housing emergency in urban and rural areas are being ignored. Today's EPA report shows the serious failure by Government to invest in modern wastewater services. Bunmahon and Lismore in County Waterford are a case in point. In Bunmahon raw sewage enters the river and the sea and families are prevented from building because of a lack of capacity. In Lismore, the town is subject to frequent water outages and much-needed houses and apartments are refused planning permission, including 20 units last week. Until the Government gets real about investing in infrastructure, it will continue to fail rural communities, villages and towns when it comes to housing.

We were told the Planning and Development Act 2024 was a once in a generation reform. Instead, less than a year after its passage the Government is back in the Dáil with a clean-up Bill. That alone tells us the original process was rushed, incomplete and ultimately flawed, a metaphor for the Government's housing strategy and policy. We are not opposing the changes proposed in the Bill, but let us be honest, they will not move the dial on housing delivery and they certainly will not deliver the affordable homes that workers and families so badly need. This Bill will not solve the housing crisis and the Government knows it. What we have is a tidy-up Bill for legislation that was supposed to fix planning once and for all. However, it will not build homes, it will not cut rents and it will not help a single family locked out of housing.

The Government asked for constructive proposals. We are tabling them here through our amendments. If it is serious about solutions, it should start by accepting them. Sinn Féin is tabling practical amendments to improve the Bill to make it more effective. We are proposing to empower the Minister to set statutory timelines for judicial reviews so pauses do not become indefinite delays, to guarantee public participation both during the judicial review pause and the planning extension process in line with the Aarhus Convention and principles of good planning, to require developers to explain why a project has not commenced and to show how they intend to proceed it to avoid speculative land holding, and to reduce the window to commence works after an extension is granted from 18 months to six months to ensure extensions lead to delivery. Government Ministers routinely challenge the Opposition by asking where their ideas and solutions are. Here they are. Those are the four amendments I have just described. These are focused and reasonable proposals that will strengthen the legislation without causing delay. If the Government is serious about listening, now is the chance to do it. Let us not lose sight of the bigger picture. Planning reform is a tool and not an end in itself. Until the Government starts using that tool to actually deliver affordable homes at scale in every part of the country, we will be back here debating more patches and fixes while the crisis deepens.

I must say it is interesting to hear Government backbenchers seeking to blame all and sundry for the housing crisis. We heard the Taoiseach today blaming Dublin City Council for the housing crisis in response to a question from a Deputy on this side of the House. Until the Government gets real and accepts its role in this, that Government governs and that it has executive power to solve this housing crisis, I fear we will be going around in circles and will be back here debating the same thing again in another few months.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. By and large, the Bill is necessary. Some would say there is a magic wand for solving the housing crisis. I certainly believe that a whole lot of magic wands are needed. There are a number of components that are needed, and this is certainly one of them. In general, I welcome the Bill. Some of the proposed amendments might set things back. While some of the amendments may be worthy of consideration, others might cause further problems. The proposal to extend planning permission is worthy, particularly with regard to judicial reviews. Judicial review can hold up a development for a long period of time. It is important that period of time is added onto the life of the planning permission to allow development to take place. Retrospective applications where the development did not substantially commence can also be extended by two years or more than three years if it is applied for within six months of the enactment of the legislation. The Minister of State might look at that again. Is six months restrictive? Should we say it may be within a year of the enactment of the legislation? I say that in a helpful way to try to keep planning applications alive. The Minister of State and I know there is a huge shortage of builders. There is a chronic shortage of tradesmen and tradeswomen. That has to be fixed. Even if you have your planning permission and are ready to go and the builder wants to get on site, they may not have the tradespeople. We need to be careful on that. Overall, I recognise the Bill is necessary and is one step in trying to fix the problem.

I turn to apartments, and I say this in a straightforward way. Going from a minimum of 37 sq. m to 32 sq. m and taking away some of the natural light is not good. If you step it out, 32 sq. m is six by five. It is a small space. I lived in a two-bedroom house that was 56 sq. m, and that was small. The sitting room was 8 ft 4 in. by 8 ft 6 in. as I recall it. It was a very small house. That is very restrictive. A question was raised at the housing committee earlier about the sums on this and if it will reduce the cost by between €50,000 and €100,000. I have not seen any evidence that it will. On a proportional basis it may be more like a €10,000 reduction. I also question the justification for this. It is supposed to be because there are fewer apartments and houses to rent.

6 o’clock

In actual fact, in the nine-month period beginning in June 2023, almost 17,000 extra tenancies were registered with the Residential Tenancies Board. As for this business that apartments are not happening, 9,700 of those were apartments. The questions in my head are where this is coming from and whether it will make such a difference. Is it Construction Industry Federation lobbying that is happening here? Are they lobbying us politicians to make these changes on the basis it will up profits, but we may not see extra apartments? I have huge concerns around that. It is important that we do it on the basis of evidence and I have not seen the evidence this is necessary. In fact, it is quite the contrary given the fact the number of rental accommodation units continues to increase. The private rental market has expanded and has not been able to cope with what is required because of the population increase. That is a fact we have to face up to. Everything needs to be on the basis of evidence. The evidence does not suggest there are no apartments coming on stream or extra houses coming up for rent. Neither have I seen evidence that it will reduce costs by €50,000 to €100,000. When I saw that in the press at the weekend, I straight away thought it did not stack up.

I expected something in this Bill around wind farm developments. I want to say what I have said to every Minister since 2011, including former Minister Phil Hogan. We do not have proper guidelines for wind farms. I am in favour of wind and solar energy. I do not believe in this thing of "No wind farms, no solar energy". We should have them but the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, knows as well as I do that planning has to be a balance of judgments. You have to weigh up the common good, environmental needs, electricity demands and a number of other factors. That has to be done properly. We have 2006 planning guidelines for wind farms. They were okay at the time, when wind turbines were 30 m or 40 m high - 100 ft or 120 ft - but they are now hitting 600 ft. Planning permission is being sought for turbines of up to nearly 200 m in height. They are springing up left, right and centre. Deputy John McGuinness will know this because he has been at the meetings on the Laois-Kilkenny border that I have been at. Cullahill, Ballinakill, Ballyragget and Durrow will all be affected. There is a rash of wind farms being proposed across that area.

I do not profess to have all the answers on this but I brought forward a Bill recently to try to put some order on this and to prompt some action on it by the Government. I am not saying the measures in it are the be-all and end-all. I would be open to it being amended, but at the very least we need guidelines in place. We may need a short-term moratorium until we get guidelines in place. I have read the answers I got over the years to parliamentary questions asking where the guidelines were. The answers were copy and paste over a period of nearly a decade. Communities need some say and some protection. Society needs electricity and we are electrifying our energy needs to try to reduce carbon emissions. Wind and solar are good sources but we do not have good guidelines for wind farms.

I got a reply from the Minister of State's Department on solar the other day. There are no guidelines whatsoever for solar, yet there are huge solar farms being planned. I support solar energy and the development of solar farms on a proper scale. The key bit of the answer to the parliamentary question said:

[The] Department has begun an initial scoping process to identify the component factors relevant to the preparation of planning guidelines for solar energy development, including...appropriate environmental reporting and public consultation requirements, and [a] possible timeframe... [for the] said guidelines.

It goes on and near the end it says, "In the interim," - so there is nothing there at the moment. It says scoping is at an early stage. At the bottom, it says: "In the interim, there are currently no specific planning guidelines in place in respect of solar energy development." That is shocking. Solar energy has been planned for years and particularly over the past three or four years it is starting to pop up, yet we do not actually have guidelines. Everything has to be proportionate and balanced. There is one thing the Government and the Department have to do - there are Department officials here. The Minister, his senior officials and the Secretary General of the Department have a responsibility to bring forward guidelines on this. I am a single Independent and I was able to introduce a Bill. I am not saying it is perfect but surely to God with the resources of the Department we can get straightforward guidelines in place to ensure these developments take place in a proper manner.

This is not something I like to say but I have to say it because it is in my mind. Is it a case the guidelines are not being put in place in order to allow developments to take place first and then the guidelines will be put in place afterwards, so the horse will have bolted and it will be too late? Is that what is happening? I hope it is not but that question is being raised and it has crossed my mind many times in the past ten or 15 years, given we are still relying on the 2006 ones. I ask the Minister of State and officials to take that on board and come back with guidelines. We need sensible guidelines which allow for wind farm and solar developments at a proper scale.

I welcome the overall thrust and intent of the Bill. A few amendments are being put forward. Some of them are worthy; some might cause problems. This Bill will not solve the housing crisis - no single piece of legislation will - but it is one of the pieces needed. As an Opposition TD, I welcome this.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the Bill in principle. I believe it will unclog an issue in the planning process. I want to raise an issue and Deputy Stanley has spoken on it before me. I was out on a roadway last night between Kilkenny and Durrow. I was looking at the problem of the wind farms that will be behind and in front of the 15 houses along a stretch of that roadway. The meeting was quite constructive but it struck me the cards are stacked against local communities. Deputies may be for or against wind farms and wind energy. I have to say it is okay in the right place but it was not and is not okay at that location, because of how close the windmills are to the houses, at the front and back. Taking into account the cabling and so on, it is a real issue. The community is faced with going the full round with the developers. There is little or no assistance for the community in putting together a case and pursuing the genuine complaints it has about what is happening. Essentially, the system is pitting neighbours and communities against each other. As a number of counties are concerned in this issue, consideration has to be given to what each planning authority is doing. We cannot take these farms in isolation.

I want to ask about the 2006 regulations or guidelines. When will the Government set out the guidelines to give communities a reasonably level playing field? What is happening?

The cost that is being pushed upon communities in this regard is too much. The extent to which they have to go to protect the quality of life they enjoy and the fact it can then end up with An Bord Pleanála clogs up An Bord Pleanála and takes away the democratic right of the individuals concerned to raise an objection and to be able to do so without being put into enormous debt in doing so. Deputy Stanley has a Bill before us. I ask the Minister of State and other Members of the House to let that be the Bill that will cause the general debate in this House and let the Government amend it if it so wishes. However, let us set out a course to protect the communities we serve, instead of what we are doing currently, which is alienating them.

The blockages in housing, certainly in my constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, are down to the obstacles that are being placed in the way by Irish Water. You cannot get planning permission and you cannot develop the small towns and villages. You cannot have a community with a little bit of vision that wants to do something without going through the likes of Irish Water. That is one area that could be easily dealt with by funding the various infrastructural needs that are there.

I refer to the rezoning of land. If a developer in Kilkenny gets permission for a housing estate made up of, say, 100 houses, puts in the infrastructure for the 100 houses and builds 50 houses and lo and behold the council de-zones the land, he is then left with part of his investment and part of his land that cannot be developed. Where is the sense in that? It is just ridiculous. We are crying out for houses. That site is there but nothing is being done to alleviate that particular problem. I am sure there are many more examples of that right across the country.

Towns and villages like Johnstown, Urlingford or Inistioge, which are beautiful places to live in, and many others cannot move ahead with their developments. We have made the planning laws so complex and complicated with the 2024 legislation. Now, we will introduce this Bill and other amendments, and even amendments that are not down for discussion here because they will be taken in the Seanad. It is not right that we would rush through this. We are damaging the communities and we are alienating the people we represent.

We were promised that something would be done to ensure modular homes and log cabins would get planning permission or be allowed to go ahead with certain regulations and perhaps without the formal planning application being made. What is happening now is that those who have log cabins who tried to accommodate themselves on their own land, or on their parents' land, are being brought before the planning authority and are having to defend themselves there. They are being threatened with the log cabin being removed. It is not right. It seems that it is all stacked in favour of the developers to give them the break, without considering the people who are trying to accommodate themselves.

I am shocked by what I have heard about the new design guidelines for smaller apartments. If we are to build sustainable families and communities, they have to be allowed to live like normal human beings.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to make a number of points about this Bill. It is regrettable we are now spending Dáil time revisiting this issue, given the amount of time that was spent on the principal Act that is being amended by this Bill. It is a terrible waste of time that we find ourselves back here debating issues again that should really have formed part of the last Bill. I am not entirely sure I accept the notion it could not have been done at that time.

Another point I want to make about this Bill is that it is not legible for ordinary people. I make this point all the time, particularly about amending legislation. There is a body of work in this Bill that cannot be read without reference to the Act we passed last year and without reference to other Acts. Instead of taking a section that is to be amended and restating it in this Bill, as being the proposed new law, which is what we should do and which would be legible for somebody coming to the Bill on its own, we have an amendment to the principal Act, which makes it largely illegible for ordinary people. That is a more general point.

I make two other points on the issues at the heart of housing. The first is about water and I make this comment specifically in the context of my own area of Dún Laoghaire. Generally, south Dublin has a major problem with water capacity and sewerage capacity. It results in a number of issues with water quality in Dublin Bay because when you have a heavy rainfall event, the run-off from roads, streets and footpaths goes into the same system that the sewerage from domestic dwellings goes into. That goes down to a pumping station in the West Pier, which is pumped in an under sea-floor pipe into the Poolbeg station, where it is treated. The problem is that if you have a huge volume of water going in after a lot of rain, the pumping station is rapidly inundated and cannot cope with the capacity. It has an 80,000 l attenuation tank, which takes the overflow but what often happens is that the overflow from the overflow tank ends up in Dublin Bay, where people swim and fish and which is used for recreational purposes. It is unacceptable that we cannot stop that from happening in the 21st century. It is something we need to address as a matter of urgency. There are a number of solutions, which I have set out in this House before, to deal with not just reforming that system but the separation of water and the reuse of water in a domestic context.

I make reference to the proposal that went before Cabinet today to reduce the minimum size for small dwellings. I do not accept that is the solution to our housing problem. I do not accept that making small apartments smaller somehow makes it easier to deliver housing in this country. What you are actually doing is making the living conditions of people in small dwellings - I lived in one for many years - worse and it is not answer. From speaking to people in my constituency, including people involved in the building trade, I understand the problem is getting finance. The pillar banks and the financiers of developments are not giving them the finance they need or are not doing it in a way that allows them to get projects off the ground. That is the problem. If finance is the problem, let us set up a State vehicle to help them do that. The answer is not simply to make changes in the minimum standards to make building more profitable. That cannot be the right answer. Let us solve the finance problem instead of making small apartments smaller, because that is what we are proposing to do.

I make reference to two amendments I put down to this Bill that have, I am sorry to day, been ruled out of order. I think they are relevant because one of them refers to an amendment to section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1994. That is a provision which allows local authorities to implement road safety measures. Obviously, nobody is opposed to that. The difficulty I have is that it is done without recourse to the elected officials at local level. There are a series of measures in the section. It is a reserved function for the councillors to decide certain things in terms of putting the matter out to public consultation and things like that but the final decision on whether to implement the road changes is made by officials. I am blue in the face from saying in this House and in the Seanad, where I was for the past five years, that officials will never knock on any constituent's door and ask them what they think. That is what councillors do. The hardest working members of our democracy have little power and less and less power because of measures exactly like this Bill that take it away from them and give them to faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats at local level. That is a regressive and regrettable move. We see it happening again in the rejection of the amendment I put down to this Bill.

The other amendment I put down again relates to local authorities and the provision of municipal districts in the four Dublin local authorities, Galway City Council and Cork City Council. As there were not town councils in those local authorities, when the Local Government Reform Act 2014 came into effect, they did not get municipal districts with the result that all decisions have to be made at council level and cannot be made at what are called area committees in those local authorities. It increases the bureaucracy at local level. It increases the work that has to be done in the one council meeting per month. It reduces the efficiency of decisions being made at local level by councillors elected by their local communities. We need to move to empower those people and reflect the fact we should be devolving those decisions to a different committee. At a European level, we talk about subsidiarity all the time and making decisions more and more localised and yet we ignore that principle in the context of Irish law. We are taking powers away from the local level and centralising them into local government. There was an opportunity with those amendments to change that. Unfortunately, that has been rejected.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Independent and Parties Technical Group had nine minutes remaining. I propose that we use those minutes now because Deputy Connolly is here. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Chair for facilitating me. My apologies.

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. As usual, I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service, which again has been under pressure to produce a digest for us. The Bill has 17 sections and two Parts. I have both positive and negative things to say about it but I never agree with waiving pre-legislative scrutiny. Doing so is a bad decision. There are issues that should have been teased out through pre-legislative scrutiny. There was no regulatory impact statement and the legislation is being rushed through. As said by Deputy Ward, we are now amending an Act that was discussed for hours and hours. I feel for the staff because the 2024 legislation was practically impossible, involving long hours and late nights.

The 2024 legislation was to amend the 2000 Act to bring clarity and certainty, not just to the legality of what was set out in the latter but also in relation to the market. It has utterly failed to do that and we have not implemented it. There have been two orders to implement two little parts of it. Here we are today, in the second last week of the term, rushing through a Bill that will amend an Act passed only a few months ago after years of discussion. It is a most unacceptable way to do business. It promotes the narrative that the Government is leading with, namely that objectors are the cause of the problem. I say again on the record that any planning system should be robust enough to deal effectively and quickly with concerned residents’ or citizens’ submissions. I do not believe these submissions are objections. The people I know go to great trouble to make submissions, at a personal cost, including financially, and they do their best. It is always a case of David and Goliath. It has been recognised by the courts that there is a trinity involved always: the community or residents; the developer; and the local authority or planning authority. We must really stop blaming people who take the trouble to make submissions.

Having said that, and as pointed out, a substantial amount of the major Act of a few months ago has not been commenced, yet there is a need to amend it, among other things, to ensure that updated housing requirements in the revised national planning framework can be quickly incorporated into the planning system and to provide certainty that this may lawfully occur under the 2000 Act, which is 25 years old and which we were supposed to have amended or repealed. We are doing all that because we have not rolled out the Planning and Development Act 2024. I do not have the words to describe this but believe it is a subject for “Callan’s Kicks” or for somebody with a sense of humour and irony that we are now amending an Act that has not been commenced. There is really no explanation given for this. We have transitional measures, which I agree with, to facilitate the variation of development plans and local area plans that were commenced under the Act of 25 years ago so they may continue, even when the relevant sections of that Act have not been commenced in the new Act. I repeat that because it is so Kafkaesque. We need to do this to offer “continuity, legal certainty, and operational flexibility”. That was the purpose of the 2024 Act.

The suspension of the running of duration of planning permissions until judicial reviews are complete is a practical suggestion and I do not have a difficulty with it; however, I do have a difficulty with a certain narrative of a man whose name I forget, but who I believe is the chair of the infrastructure committee and whom I mentioned before in the Dáil, that objectors are running down to the courts for judicial reviews. The Government has given absolutely no evidence anywhere of that. I am going to go back to the figures given in the Bill digest on the tiny amount of the planning permissions that sit unactivated. This is certainly not caused by judicial reviews. If the Government is going to air the narrative in every interview and everywhere else, it has a duty to give evidence and facts to show the number of judicial reviews. That I would have no difficulty with.

I do have a difficulty with the extension of housing permissions that would otherwise lapse or that have not yet commenced although they are near the end of their durations. They are going to get an extension of up to three years. One must apply within a six-month period of the legislation commencing, which I welcome, although we have no idea when this Bill, when it becomes law, will be commenced. Then one has to start within 18 months. Presumably, that is to ensure developers do not sit on undeveloped land for an extended period so it will increase in value.

Nobody has asked why permissions have not been acted on up to now. Nowhere in a paper do I see it set out, except in the case of the few subjected to judicial review. There are thousands but in the scheme of the planning permission numbers overall, which I will come back to, the proportion is lower than 10%, I gather. We hear phrases like “financial obstacles” and “the rising cost of materials” but I really would have liked the obstacles to acting upon planning permissions to have been set out. They are nowhere. I just see references to judicial reviews over and over. The purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny is to set all this out.

I do not see a breakdown of the judicial reviews by county. I would love to know how many were taken in Galway county and city and how many planning permissions are sitting there because of judicial review or simply because developers are sitting on the land and waiting for things to change. We heard an announcement recently that the apartments will be reduced in size. I cannot think of anything more obscene. We have learned nothing if we think it is okay to reduce the size of an apartment.

I pay tribute to assistant Professor Orla Hegarty, who, as a public servant, clearly articulated on “Morning Ireland” that the Government proposal would not lead to a reduction in the cost of apartments. She went on to say how costs could be reduced and listed various ways, one of which was to pay builders a monthly salary to build houses. This was one of the many good suggestions she made. It contrasts with having developer-led development all the time.

Let me refer to figures on page 16 of the Bill digest. Maybe the Government will come back with different figures. The digest states:

More than 50,000 apartments in Dublin [Notice it is not the rest of the country] have planning permission but have not commenced construction. Of the 82,700 homes permitted citywide, over two-thirds remain inactive.

Could I have the attention of the Minister and Minister of State for a little while? The digest goes on to state, “While approximately 7,500 units are affected by judicial review, the majority, nearly 50,000, are stalled for other reasons.” There is absolutely no elaboration on those other reasons. I have read all the Minister’s press releases and what he said about judicial reviews. Some of what he said was okay and I accept it to a point, but no reasons have been given for the failure to activate all the planning permissions not related to judicial reviews. Now the Minister is going to make it easier for developers to sit on land. Rather than resourcing local authorities, the Taoiseach is coming out condemning them. I certainly have been critical of them, particularly in Galway, but they were stopped from building housing back in 2009. When we got our quarterly report, it stated construction was suspended. It remained suspended until 2020 and we are going to blame local authorities for that.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amending legislation being introduced this evening is quite ironic in that it is amending legislation that has not yet been commenced. This is one of the key Opposition criticisms. We spent many months last year on planning and development legislation. It was the biggest Bill ever to come before the House and here we are back again amending it.

The biggest issue I have with the Bill before us is the narrative it portrays, namely that the housing problem across the country is because of planning permission issues and people objecting. These are not the reasons we have a problem with housing across the country.

That narrative lets Government off the hook and Government conveniently continues to grab onto it as being the reason for the problems. Builders, people on the ground and even people in the local authorities will all say the same thing. In many cases the problems they have are with services. There are an awful lot of plots of land around the country where they want to build houses. There are towns in my constituency where we could build houses and where the local authority owns land and could build local authority houses, but cannot do so because Uisce Éireann has not got the services up to scratch. There are no sewerage or water systems available in those areas. It is the same across the State.

We also have an issue with financing. The recent announcement that we are going to see a reduction in size of the already very small and cramped apartments across the State to somehow or other make them cheaper is a hugely retrograde step. The problem we have with financing all aspects of our housing is that the banks are not lending to the builders. That is the problem. An ordinary builder cannot go to a bank and get money to build ten, 50 or 100 houses. They simply cannot get it. They have to go to these other funds, which lend at exorbitant rates. They cannot possibly hope to be able to fund that. That is putting a stranglehold on houses being built. It is pushing up prices because it is removing any competition between the builders and developers and huge interest rates are being charged on the money.

The legislation on judicial reviews and so on is fair enough. We accept there has to a brake put on that at times. However, to suggest it is the reason we have a problem is totally false. The reason we have a problem is that Government has not taken action to ensure we have services in place to enable us to build houses and finance in place so the builders can get the money to build.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Legal and planning issues need to be addressed, without a doubt, but I agree with Deputy Kenny that the major issues, which we have all been dealing with when we talk to developers, builders, and local authorities, are infrastructure, bureaucracy, high costs and a difficulty drawing down finance for building. As regards this legislation, it is not the way to be doing business. As Deputy Kenny said, we are amending legislation that is not fully in operation at this point. Many of these issues could have been dealt with previously.

In the limited time I have, I would like to bring up the infrastructural issues I raised with the Taoiseach earlier. I refer to Uisce Éireann, the EPA report and the issues around supply. In Dundalk, Greenmount, Tallanstown and Cavan Hill, this is impacting on upwards of approximately 53,000 people. The supply is not sufficiently resilient and there are issues with water quality. We have wastewater issues in my part of Dundalk that impact on planning and affect those houses that are already built. They are talking about interim solutions - interim wastewater treatment systems - at this point for the likes of Haggardstown. That tells me we do not have the infrastructure in place and we need to address the issues as quickly as possible. It is as simple as that.

An issue I bring up again is the fact we need to deal with the capital assistance scheme, CAS, capital advance leasing facility, CALF, schemes and the issues facing people in the disability sector when it comes to delivering houses for those with disabilities.

Ken O'Flynn (Cork North-Central, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Like everybody else in this House, I am slightly baffled that we are amending something that has not been enacted as of yet. While I rise to support the Bill and while I believe the Government is taking some steps, it is certainly not taking the steps that need to be taken in this House when it comes to planning. Everybody in this House, left, right and centre, has pointed out the inadequacy of our planning laws. For instance, people talked about community objections, and I accept them, but I do not accept a guy in Kerry objecting to a wall in Donegal. I do not accept somebody in Longford having an interest in a Velux window being installed in Waterford and complaining about it. Our planning laws are not fit for purpose. We are one of only two countries in the European Union where somebody with no local investment or local interest can object to a planning permission. That has to be addressed and it has to happen yesterday.

Day in, day out we are hearing from Members on all sides of the House about the problems with Irish Water. I am in touch with somebody who has been waiting for the past eight weeks for a SoDA report for a site to go ahead with 80 units in Cork city. The pumping station is right next door. He cannot even enter a planning application without the SoDA report from Irish Water. Irish Water does not even have the decency to reply to my emails, his emails or his solicitor's emails. That is what is happening. Those are the delays.

Members have referred to dezoning of lands and planning permissions. I saw that in my own constituency in Blarney where vast acres of land were dezoned, removing their value overnight. What did Cork City Council come along and do under the direction of the Department? It was told to start zoning the land in the docklands because we had to build 5,000 houses there. Cork City Council agreed and applied for planning. The Taoiseach came out with full fanfare telling everyone he was going to commit over €600 million to the Cork docklands, we were going to develop the docklands and have them full of housing and full of people. What happened? An Bord Pleanála went into the Taoiseach's constituency and knocked 800 units on the head because there was no school provision by the Government. Sorry about that but there will be nothing built in the docklands.

The Government is now coming along with ideas about apartments. Deputies have mentioned 50,000 apartments in Dublin alone that have not been built because the four pillar banks are not lending to anyone. Developers are depending on shadow banks. If you go to get a loan from the likes of Pepper Finance, by Jesus almighty, they are like the same guys who were in the temple when Christ had to throw them out. That is the type of people Pepper Finance are. People cannot do business with them. They are screwing any developer and any small builder in the country. It is unacceptable.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

From my first day here I have been telling people I have been in the construction industry all my life. I will give colleagues whatever experience I can. Infrastructure is the key and being on budget and on time. From the time Irish Water was set up, it has not brought in one project on budget or on time. If anything, it is over budget all the time. That is the problem. Let it be developer-led infrastructure. Let them build the infrastructure to the design of Irish Water, standards which are there to be seen. Let it be overseen by the county councils and then handed back to them when done. We will get twice the amount of infrastructure and twice the number of houses built.

On the purpose of one-off planning, people want to build their own house and now the contributions have been brought back in again. A person building a house on their own land, which will never have a footpath or public lighting, and supplying their own water, is now paying €5,000 to build a house on their own land. They are paying 20% of their mortgage as tax. They are building their own house and they are not on a list that the Government has to provide houses for them. They are providing their own. They work, pay tax, pay tax on their mortgage, pay a fee to build on their own land, and pay tax on the fuel for their car but they get nothing back from Government even though they are giving everything. They are working for the people who are not able to work and they are not complaining.

I heard contributions today where Members said parents are doing without one meal in every four to make sure their children have food. The travel agencies are telling us people are not booking holidays any more because they cannot afford to go on holidays. These are the people who work hard all their lives and who now want to have a break. They can no longer have a break because it is not affordable. They have to put food on the table and pay bills.

I welcome the planning laws, if they help people build and deal with the serial objectors, which Deputy O'Flynn spoke about. Somebody in Donegal can object to something in Limerick.

Somebody in Cork can object to somebody in Leitrim. That type of stuff has to stop. We have to make sure people can build to the county councils' guidelines when they get their planning and they are allowed to build for the future.

The Minister is going to have to deal with Irish Water and he is going to have to look at development-led infrastructure.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Independent Ireland will not be opposing this Bill going through the Dáil. That might be an example to the Minister as to how we are open to doing business. When we put forward a motion two or three weeks ago we put forward about 20 proposals, the Government put forward 24 or 25 amendments to make sure it did not go through the Dáil. It might have resolved the situation around housing and the situation we keep talking about, year in year out, month in month out. To be honest, the root of the problem, which unfortunately is of no value to the Minister to hear, is county development plans. That is where it all went wrong. I saw it myself. When I was on the council around 2014 to 2016 I saw senior planners taking control and the local councillor, who knew every God damn thing going on in his community, regardless of it being urban or rural, was squashed out and his mouth was shut. Here we are in a crisis thanks to those people because they were clueless. They did not understand how planning worked. They did not understand how the housing crisis was going to develop if they continued to refuse and refuse. They were de-zoning land that was zoned. They were stopping development taking place. There was a complete objection from senior planners and it has led us to the mess we are in right now. The county development plans should be re-looked at the length and breadth of this country, in every council, whether it is Cork County Council or wherever. The council that is elected should have a say because they are representing the viewpoint of the people out there. I know zoned ground in Clonakilty that was de-zoned. I know plenty of places where wreck was done. Now we are trying to undo that wreck and that mess at this time. I hope to God this Bill being put through the Dáil will help the people and will force Irish Water to now deliver, for the first time ever, and to hold it and the EPA accountable. I called for the resignation of the head of the EPA during the week. She comes out continuously slating agriculture and slating farmers regarding waters and our rivers. We know the biggest culprits are the State and the wastewater treatment plants. I see it with Shannonvale, pouring waste water into a local play park down into the river. People in Dunmanway cannot build one house. In the last week or two we have both a Minister and a Senator, both in Government, fighting among themselves. One is saying they have the solution, the other saying that solution is ridiculous. This is not good enough for the people of Dunmanway. They need to build houses. They are living in close proximity to Cork city. They are in a beautiful part of the world. They cannot build one house there. There is no chance of development there for maybe the next 20 or 30 years. We do not know, because Uisce Éireann has complete control over everything that happens but there is no deadline on anything. It is giving itself plenty of space.

I met Ryan McKeown today. I was in Dundalk. This young man came to us a couple of years ago. He said he was on the way out of this country because he could not see a future. Deputy Richard O'Donoghue and myself of Independent Ireland met him. We pleaded with that young man to stay here and he is here, but he still does not see a future here. There is not a hope for that young man to have a house of his own or the things he needs here. I am going to Cape Clear this weekend for the same situation. They have no housing there. Their teacher is leaving because there is nobody coming into the local community on that island. We have a crisis no matter which way we turn, whether it is rural or urban.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have an amendment of a Bill to legislation that has not been enacted. Looking at it, at face value one has to welcome it. Regarding the retrospective suspension of planning permission duration during judicial review, insofar as there are delays caused by judicial reviews, I take this point. However, as others have said, judicial reviews are not the main issue, which I will go into in a minute.

The Bill also provides for the extension of the duration of uncommenced housing developments, which the legislation says is temporary until 2027. Again, this is to give developers a chance to get building. The real issue with the delay is infrastructure, as people have mentioned before. It is also An Bord Pleanála. We have a situation where if anyone does put in an objection to An Bord Pleanála time and time again it keeps getting put back. It has given additional staff resourcing to the board, but the board is still not sufficiently resourced. I have had planning applications in my constituency where I have got a letter three or four times to say it is not possible to make a decision during this time period. That delays stuff. I agree with others; we cannot have someone from Cahirsiveen making a decision on something happening in Dublin, or somebody from Donegal making a decision on Dingle. That does not make sense, but there are genuine community concerns that are expressed. Oftentimes, they are expressed with a lack of tie-in for amenities and community infrastructure alongside housing. That is why I reiterate what I recently said to the Taoiseach. Everywhere should be a strategic development zone. If we take south Dublin, with its development plan process coming up, as an entire area it should be designated as a strategic development zone so there is a pinpoint of the infrastructure that will have to go in. Then we can have An Bord Pleanála make a deliberation. Any application that is live, stays live. Any application after that does not need to go to An Bord Pleanála as with the Adamstown and Clonburris SDZs. They go straight to the local authority and the process is usually sped up unless they drop the ball and have to put in a big environmental assessment as is also happening in my area. We could speed things up massively if we tie in the facilities and infrastructure and say, for example, a school is going here. We should also tie in things like having X number of bus services by X number of houses. The developers in Adamstown have delivered the parks, the community centres, when they knew they had to deliver them in order to continue building housing.

As others have mentioned, there is also an issue with funding. If the private developers cannot get funding through the banking system, then the State, within EU parameters, should be able to provide some form of lending to allow them to do this. I have said before that the State should be the single biggest developer. That does not mean we should be employing every single builder, but we should be facilitating builders, specifically, the small, local, builders here in Ireland around the country, as well as the larger ones, as opposed to depending on the large vulture funds to come in and build housing at exorbitant rental fees.

Another issue is industrial policy. I recently mentioned this at a committee. We are attracting companies that invariably want to operate in Dublin. I know the policy is to try and shift them to the regions. One of the IT companies was quoted on the IDA website saying not to worry if they cannot find enough software developers here, there are people all over the EU wanting to come to Ireland. The problem is, when they all come to Ireland into Dublin, they are pushing up house prices. They are the only ones who can afford the housing. Therefore, our nurses, teachers, gardaí, keep getting screwed by the affordable housing scheme parameters and keep having to reapply. We need to have a more spread-out regional development process. We also have to make sure there is adequate car parking. In Adamstown, Kilcarbery and Clonburris, they are fighting each other over car parking spaces. That needs to be put into any plans.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome aspects of this legislation. We will be supporting it. However, I have raised many very valid points in this House around viability and around reducing the costs. I have brought points to the Minister about people with planning permission who want to build, who have a housing need, who are renting and cannot afford it, and he has not engaged with any of those points. I ask the Minister to engage with this because there is a value to engaging with the Opposition as well. It is very disappointing that issues around the demand have not even been mentioned by the Minister regarding the housing crisis.

I want to raise a number of important points. Through the parliamentary question process, I have raised a number of questions with the Minister. They were around how long the average wait is with An Bord Pleanála, around the number of judicial reviews and around the cost of judicial reviews to An Bord Pleanála. The Minister replied that he did not know. I also asked questions around the various housing schemes, for example, the affordable housing schemes and first-home schemes in terms of delivery. Again, the Minister replied that he did not know. These are key performance indicators. These are the tools and the levers which the Minister can use to activate. It is very disappointing these key metrics are unknown to the Minister and his Department. I will tell the Minister: six homes have been delivered under the first home scheme in Mayo since its introduction over five or six years.

Under the affordable housing scheme, five homes have been delivered in Mayo. This is an abysmal record. Is that why the Minister will not tell us? Is that why we have to go digging? I am very concerned about An Bord Pleanála, by the way, with regard to the cost of judicial reviews to the State. I would like the Minister to reply to me with that information.

I want to raise a concern I have regarding planners. My understanding is that there has been a huge lack of planners in An Bord Pleanála, and the Government has essentially stolen them from the local authorities. It has robbed Peter to pay Paul. What assessment now has been done with regard to the delays that may inevitably follow as a result of taking so many planners from local authorities?

I also want to raise an important point, if I could have the Minister's attention, please. We have dezoned land at a time of significant population growth. Within those county development plans, we have population targets. My concern here is that these targets are being used as a ceiling upon housing delivery. This is really concerning because we are in a housing crisis; 16,000 people are in emergency accommodation. That list is going to grow, and yet a housing development on the Killala Road in Ballina was rejected. It was approved by Mayo County Council and rejected by An Bord Pleanála, and it was objected to and overturned was for two reasons, one of which was that "population targets of the core strategy could be exceeded by the residential development". That was the key reason it was rejected. This is a site with all of the services. A very good, reputable builder in Ballina who is capable of building 100 houses - not all of them can - had the finance ready to go, and it was rejected, not for any significant reason but because of the population targets. It comes at a time when there is a huge housing need in Ballina and right across Mayo. It also comes at a time when Hollister has announced an €80 million investment, which would bring significant jobs to the area, and the county development plan - the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, which is under the Minister's remit as well, has a big role in this, by the way - rejected it. It is incredible. I have done a lot of research in this regard. I want the Minister to issue a section 29 notification, which is allowable in the planning Act, to revise the housing targets and allow this development to take place. It is hard to believe that in a housing crisis, we have built into the system a metric that actually prevents housing delivery. We have such a housing crisis, so that needs to happen. I ask the Minister to follow up with me in this regard. He can issue a section 29 notification. He can revise the housing targets for Ballina, which would allow this development to take place. He could do that if he wanted to, but he appears to lack the will to proactively work on this. It is so frustrating.

I welcome this part of the legislation relating to serial objectors. This needs to end. We cannot have a situation where people in County Donegal can object to a development in County Cork, for example. That aspect, and the significant delays in An Bord Pleanála, have allowed the facilitation of bogus organisations operating on environmental grounds to exploit the situation and hold builders to ransom with regard to housing delivery.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy. I call the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. First of all, I will say to the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, that an awful lot of good, sound work has gone into the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025. The extending of the pause of duration of permission due to judicial review is to give back the time. That is very important. The containment in the Bill of the "Extension of duration for uncommenced housing developments (including single house development) which have less than 2 years of duration of their permission remaining" is also very important, as is the provision that "An extension of up to 3 years may be sought provided it is applied for within 6 months of the provision commencing". I do appreciate that "The planning authority must be satisfied that the development will be completed within a reasonable time, and if the duration is extended under this provision the works must commence within 18 months of the provision commencing or the extension will cease to have effect." Those are very sensible measures that will have a direct input for people on the ground. Other works that have been carried out have gone for consultation now, such as the exemptions for development. This is going to be a very welcome development for our local authorities because the planning departments of our local authorities are engaged an awful lot with what I would call gobbledegook, things that are a waste of time for them, but at the same time, the people have to apply for it. Thankfully, this Government is listening to common sense because these exemptions were something that I and my brother, Danny Healy-Rae, were very anxious to have in the time of this Government.

I will give the Leas Cheann-Comhairle an example of the exemptions. I refer to the idea and provision of modular homes. Modular homes are what I would call very high-class now, and they are good accommodation. They are not some airy-fairy thing at the bottom of the garden. These are sound, sensible housing solutions. They can be short term, or they could be longer term. They are warm, comfortable, well insulated and properly ventilated. The idea is that a person will be able to apply to put in one of these units in the curtilage of his or her home and have that as a housing solution. It could be for an older person or young couples who need to get going on the property ladder. I really think that is very good. There are an awful lot of other things as well, however, such as the subdivision of large houses and the idea of attics being able to be developed without having to go to the planning authority. That is what I would call sound, sensible work by the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, and I very much appreciate that.

There is the whole idea then of young people. In County Kerry, we have an awful lot of people who do not want anything from anybody. They do not want anything. The do not want money; they do not want anything. What they want is a piece of paper telling them they have permission. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has them. People say, "give me a piece of paper granting me permission." They have land, and they have their own way between their bit of savings and the mortgage they hopefully will get. The banks could loosen up a small bit too, look after our young people and be more user-friendly when it comes to giving loans. If they get that golden piece of paper giving them permission to build their houses, that is all they want from this State. That is all they want, and we should encourage that to happen every way we can and allow these young people to be able to build their own homes. That is what this Government is about and that is what we want to do.

There is one thing about An Bord Pleanála, and this has to be put on record in this House. Our late father always said that you can say anything once you are telling the truth. A situation may arise whereby a person is referred to An Bord Pleanála, and an inspector would go to look at the proposed development. That inspector would look at what is proposed on the ground, do up a report and go before the board in Dublin to say that he or she recommends a grant of permission in that case. Many people in Ireland might think the board is a very well-organised thing with a big crowd of people, like a Cabinet meeting. It is not. When An Bord Pleanála meets, it might be the inspector who has come back with his or her report and two other people. This could be happening at 5 o'clock , 7 o'clock or 9 o'clock at night or whenever it suits those individuals to have their meeting. What can happen then is the hardworking person who is has gone into great detail and visited the site might be recommending that, yes, this planning should be granted, but all of a sudden the two geniuses who were maybe never in the county will say they do not agree with that person, and he or she gets outnumbered by two to one. That means that person's hope is gone. It could be a young person in Glencar or somewhere who is looking to build a house for themselves. It could be a developer, and there is nothing wrong with being a developer. There is nothing wrong with being a hardworking builder who maybe has the wherewithal to build ten, 50 or 100 houses. I am glad the Taoiseach recognises that the involvement of the private sector is very important in taking care of the future housing needs because, as a State, we will not be able to do it all and we need those big developers. We need those small developers.

7 o’clock

We also need medium-sized developers. However, when their work is going before the board and these people, in their infinite wisdom, take it upon themselves to dash those hopes and dreams and say "No", not only are they saying "No" to that person but they are saying "No" to everything in that report. They are going against their own inspector. I ask the Minister to use his influence to tell these people common sense will have to prevail. They may not realise there is a housing crisis and do not have to face the people or go to clinics and hear young people say, "I got my planning from my local authority. I was taken to An Bord Pleanála and an inspector came down here, agreed with the local authority, and two other geniuses up in Dublin said "No"." That is what is happening.

These geniuses in An Bord Pleanála take it upon themselves that the only word they seem to know is "No". Maybe they could be told "Yes" is also an option and something they could say. If they have a home themselves, they might think of the people who do not and of those who have spent a fortune on their planning application. It is important that common sense prevails. There is a housing crisis and I am grateful it is the number one priority for this Government. There is money being spent on housing and of course, we must address issues like infrastructure. With regard to Irish Water, we have to look after our small towns and villages that need extensions to sewerage schemes. We need extra provision of portable water for these towns and villages so they can be areas where people can come along and put in a planning application. We need to work together.

This is why what the Government is doing here is so important. I said at the beginning, where judicial reviews are taking place, and where we are being robbed of time, the Minister will be able to help in that situation. That is what I call sound, sensible work. Whether people want to recognise the Minister's work on this or not, I can tell him I do because I appreciate what he is doing and the way his head is thinking.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is out of time.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry. The Minister should try to bring common sense at all times to his role and we will support him in every way we can in the work he is doing.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for being present for the debate and I welcome the opportunity to speak on this provision. Picking up on the Minister of State, Deputy Healy Rae, I also welcome these proposals. They are very sensible. Keeping planning permission alive is a practical and simple measure but an essential one and I commend the Minister on bringing it forward.

It is estimated in Dublin alone, there is planning permission for up to 15,000 units with less than two years left in their lifetime so it makes eminent sense to extend the lifetime of those permissions to give them a fighting chance of commencing and undertaking development. They will not all start construction but hopefully the majority will. By extending them, it gives them a fighting chance. This is not a free-for-all. They have to be permissions with less than two years left. The developers have to seek an extension within six months and commencement has to also take place within 18 months of this provision coming into law. That is very welcome.

Equally, it is long overdue that time be allowed facilitated for planning permission subject to judicial review. The time that has been lost in the courts and JRs would be given back to planning permission. This should have happened long before now and again, I welcome the Minister bringing this forward. However, despite giving the time back on a planning permission, a judicial review will still lead to a delay. A judicial review by its very nature will delay a development. What is before us here today is welcome but the core issue of JRs delaying developments unnecessarily remains. I know there are other provisions within the Planning and Development Act to address this issue by tightening criteria and so on but it is still a live and real issue.

I listened to LDA officials at a meeting of the housing committee recently. We all know a particular scheme in Dundrum has been under judicial review for a considerable period. It is ludicrous in a housing crisis as acute as we have that the delays with that legal challenge are allowed to continue but that is the way it is. What the Minister has brought forward here within the scope of this provision is very welcome but as I said, the issue of JRs is unfinished business in terms of what is needed to ultimately address it.

The Minister is doing a body of work on planning exemptions, which I very much welcome. This is necessary as too much time is taken up at local authority and planner levels dealing with issues that do not necessarily need to be taking up their time. Small extensions, small developments and small issues in planning would be covered by an exemption. One of the big-ticket items is the modular structure in the back garden. That is a critical issue and something that needs to be brought forward. Nobody is saying this will be a long-term home for somebody but it can provide essential accommodation in many cases. It is something that will alleviate some of the intense pressure out there in respect of people trying to seek accommodation, be that rented or otherwise. That is critically important.

The Minister listened to me earlier at the housing committee meeting commenting on over-the-shop or over-the-office accommodation. It is important we also progress that. There is significant underutilisation of property within our urban areas. There are second, third and fourth floors that are not occupied, which is something we have to address. We have to bring forward sensible measures to ensure they are occupied as soon as possible.

Reference was made earlier to delays with appeals and planning appeals. I met with An Coimisiún Pleanála recently and it has made significant strides in addressing the delays. That has to be acknowledged where good work is taking place. It is now meeting all its large-scale residential developments within the specified timeframe at 100% compliance. That is very important and has to be acknowledged. The coimisiún is working through a backlog quickly and progress is being made. I also welcome the Minister's approach in providing additional resources and staffing to An Coimisiún Pleanála.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The fact we are here today discussing amendments so soon after the Government's watershed planning Act of 2024 confirms that it did not get the reforms right first time. Sinn Féin called for additional scrutiny back then and, par for the course, we were not listened to.

The issues this Bill seeks to address should have been part of the discussions on the original legislation. Again, we are asking the Government to accept Sinn Féin's amendments to this Bill to strengthen the legislation. I note these technical changes will enable local authorities to retain a number of functions until such time as the relevant sections of the 2024 Act are commenced. It is important that local authorities remain central to planning. They know the needs of the individual areas, not least the growing numbers on the housing waiting lists in each municipal area. It is only fitting that they retain oversight relevant to regional, spatial and economic development plans and local area plans.

In my own constituency of Mayo, I see first-hand the pressure council staff are under to cope with the housing emergency, as they try their best to provide housing and accommodation against a never abating stream of people in dire housing need. I will ask the Minister to open up the reserved residential-zoned land in areas where the council identifies housing need. The reason is I know local builders who want to and are ready build. There is one in particular I approached the council with last year who will not get a decision on an application for a year. Some 12 months is an awful long time for people to be homeless. We do not have any homeless accommodation in the north County Mayo but there are things that can be done there. If residential-zoned land was opened up at the discretion of the council, we could make progress.

I also raise with the issue of finance for home building. The setup fees demanded by banks are ridiculous and are without foundation. It is crazy the numbers I hear from builders. The interest rate on payments of 10% and 15% to builders are also not feasible. They are making everything unaffordable. As the Minister will know, Sinn Féin has brought forward its own housing plan, A Home of Your Own, which would give local authorities a central role in the building of homes.

Over five years, it could deliver 125,000 social and affordable homes, which would really make a difference. We would shift from the Government's preference for large private developers to empowering local councils to lead housing delivery, enabling local builders to build. We would also make housing a constitutional right, which it needs to be.

I encourage the Minister to examine those proposals, which would empower local authorities. By contrast, the announcement last week of a league table for local councils on their housing performance is a ploy to deflect the blame for the disgraceful homelessness and housing need figures, for which the Government bears absolute and sole responsibility.

The Minister has to reinstate the tenant in situ scheme. There are families in Mayo who are in fear of being made homeless right now. The short-term solution to that would be to reintroduce the scheme.

I cannot sit down without speaking about those who are in dire need due to defective concrete blocks. Will the legislation be done in the coming days to enable those who are trapped in this situation, either due to the cap or the lower rates, to get the higher rates and go ahead and rebuild their lives?

Gillian Toole (Meath East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for the briefing and for the time he has put into committee meetings, which were very informative. I welcome elements of this amendment Bill, in particular with regard to judicial reviews and what I would call the disassociated objectors from one end of the country to the other. With the developer-led model, we cannot lose sight of serving the common good in tandem with the delivery of infrastructure, particularly social infrastructure. I want to flag that.

With regard to the area of viability and affordability, while I am probably being a bit cheeky, I will speak to possible future amendments in areas that will directly underpin the affordability piece. I will give an example of an area close to me in Ratoath, County Meath. The price of an acre in 1994 was £30,000. In 1998, the farmer was paid £120,000 an acre. The developer paid £220,000, so there was a gap. This was unzoned agricultural land in 1998. Similarly, NAMA had a parcel of land on the outskirts of Ratoath. It was put on the market in 2015 with an asking price of €2.7 million. In 2018, it was withdrawn. In 2019, it was put back on again with a guide price of €7.5 million. At the time, I was poking and prodding Meath County Council and making a serious effort to get it to engage with NAMA and to get NAMA to engage with it, but nothing was happening. Lo and behold, the 27.6 acres were sold for €16.8 million, which works out at €625,000 per acre for a mix of zoned and agricultural land.

We are starting from a very high base. I know that, given our history, the issue of the price of the land is very sensitive. A good actuary, taking into account the loss of CAP income, the possible loss of solar farm income, the age to retirement of a farmer and the need to build in a margin could come to a fair price that would allow the affordability piece to be worked out in the future.

Another example is from Ashbourne, County Meath, where councillors voted against the total provision of social housing. There is a huge need for affordable housing in that area but, again, the purchase price will never deliver affordable social or, indeed, affordable private purchase there. It is another serious area that has to be watched.

Another area is that of VAT. We take an all-Ireland approach to some issues, such as cardiovascular health, and we have the Dublin-Belfast economic corridor, so we are moving in the direction of more and more processes being all-Ireland. There is one glaringly obvious area, which is zero VAT on new homes in the North of Ireland. Again, it is something that could be examined.

I look forward to the Minister's dereliction plan. There is great potential there, similar to what the Danes do with their andelsbolig model and, closer to us, Leeds has the LILAC co-operative housing model. As the Minister said at the committee meeting, the infrastructure is there and the price of land may be lower in some cases, but it will allow that opportunity for rightsizing and for age-friendly housing. It is definitely something that can be worked on.

There is another area I would like to flag with him. I am effectively in the commuter belt. I am in a little urban pocket between Ratoath and Dunshaughlin that has many older people who have lived all their lives in the country. There is the potential for the use of farm buildings for conversion to housing for rural residents who are not necessarily ready, physically, mentally or otherwise, for the transition to urban ageing. There is also potential from an agricultural perspective. The land cost would absolutely be lower than the urban land cost.

With regard to homelessness, I can give an example from Meath County Council. The primary cause of people seeking emergency accommodation in Meath is marital breakdown. Straightaway, there is a need to move from one family home to two properties. However, I am not aware of anything happening in that space in terms of mediation, support and so on.

With regard to infrastructure, the town centre first approach has been ignored by many local authorities. This needs to be revisited. Regarding commencement notices, there is the issue of the extension of duration after two years. As for the process of flipping, one entity gets planning permission and does not build but sells on, and there is a margin. Those are a few more areas for possible future consideration.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have to ask the Deputy to conclude. I call Deputy McGrath.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this legislation and I welcome the Minister to his position. I saw how steadfast he was against big industry and big business at the time of the gambling Bill. I fought with him on that Bill but he had the resolve to stick with it. I thank him for meeting and engaging with us, and for the briefings.

The Minister has a monumental task. I have said it to him privately and I will say it again. The Custom House has to be dismantled. It was levelled in the War of Independence. I do not mean to hurt anybody but it has to be dismantled to get out the rot that is there. There are some good people in there, do not get me wrong, but there is a rot and a malaise there, and it has to be tackled. Otherwise, we are going nowhere.

We have had seven or eight housing Ministers in the 18 years since I came into the House and they have all failed miserably. There is a situation where they feel they are all-powerful and they know it all, and they will not deal with county councils or anybody else. I ask the Minister to do that because if he does not, he will fail.

I am also asking him, as I said to him privately, to send Mr. Cussen, the planning regulator, out to Donald Trump, or to Gaza, or wherever - he might help someone out there. He created a job for himself. By the way, he came from the Custom House, where he spent a lot of his career. He created this position for himself, and the fools in the Government gave it to him and gave him the power to dezone land all over the country. He undermined every council in the country. Every council worked hard on development plans and he undermined them all by dezoning the land. The Minister is now trying to rezone some of that land again. He created a job for himself and went off on a fantasy tour, power-hungry, power-greedy and accountable to nobody. He has to be stood down. He is not necessary. Give the power to the county councils, which should have it, and give it to An Bord Pleanála.

Here we go again with An Bord Pleanála. There was a lot of corruption in there, as we know. As for changing the name, we have the experience of changing Irish Water to Uisce Éireann, and we did not even get clean water out of it, never mind see any schemes done. Changing the name is a veneer. Tá meas agam i gcónaí ar an nGaeilge. I love the Irish name but to change it to An Coimisiún Pleanála is not going to cut the mustard. It is not going to get out the rot. Its inspectors go down to see one-off houses or some other small developments and give a favourable report where the council has granted planning, and the board, or whoever is on the board - unaccountable, unelected people - just throw it in the bin. That is shameful. No one should get that power.

We had visionaries like T.K. Whitaker, Seán Lemass and others in the past and they brought us a long way. We built houses in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 2000s but then things went wrong, with the big developers, which was crazy, and with the Custom House down there and Ministers unable to tackle it. Ministers were afraid of it and were pushed off and fobbed off by it. I am depending on the Minister to do this.

There are many other issues. Where councils have the powers, they do not use them.

We have a section 160 injunction, a power that local authorities have. With the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's indulgence, we have a situation in Giantsgrave, Clonmel where 200 ordinary decent people met in a hall last Friday night week worried that a halting site was being created under their noses right beside them. Six Clonmel borough district members and the mayor, and two Oireachtas Members, Deputy Murphy and I, met with the senior planner, Mr. Dave Carroll, who was the fire officer and who did not do his job when he was fire officer. He did not visit Dundrum House Hotel. We asked him for 12 months to visit it. He never went near the place. Now he is the planner and he refused point blank for the council to initiate a section 160 injunction to stop this in its tracks. He has that power. He would not use it. He was talking about the courts and that he might lose in the courts. They lost in the courts last week. Thankfully, the good people of Dundrum, the heritage group, took a judicial review and the council had to admit halfway through it. They gave in and put their hands up. They made a mistake in granting a section 5 application to allow a greedy developer to get fatter and more money in his pocket, not on humanitarian grounds. Therefore, the council has the powers and it can us them when it wants to, but changing the name of An Bord Pleanála without tackling the malaise, the rot and the deep rot in the Custom House is wasteful. It might be a pipe dream. It is not going to happen.

Let us count the number of housing Ministers we have had here and see all the unfortunate people who are homeless, still on waiting lists and languishing there and no hope, and see where small builders are being denied the right to build the houses and let them off. Above all, once-off dwellings should be allowed to be carried on. The Minister should not be allowing people in offices in Dublin to throw out good planning permissions and kill the dreams of young couples in rural Ireland.

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Bill. It makes good, necessary adjustments. It reflects some of the responsiveness to what has been a frustrating planning environment but we need to be clear that the issue is not primarily judicial review. I have been listening to every Member. There are so many good ideas in the House but we need the planning law that we are making now to drive delivery, not only manage delay.

I acknowledge that the Bill provides clarity on permissions under the 2000 and 2024 Acts and how they interact, and it gives temporary breathing room for inactivated permissions. It also rightly acknowledges that some permissions are caught up but Members across the House have spoken about how it is ridiculous that someone in Galway can object to developments in Dublin. It is also hilarious how some Members talk about the housing crisis, yet when you look at their record, they are consistently objecting to housing developments in their own constituencies. Talk about talking out of both sides of their mouth. However, all that is fine. There are real legal snags that deserve attention. We are talking about the marginal fixes.

I really want to comment on how planning law is out of sync with reality. I have mentioned in the House and spoken to the Minister previously about the funding of the Housing Finance Agency and how it only meets once a month. I urge him to look into that. Developers who are waiting for sign-off on developments are losing money. Foreigners want to invest in Ireland but how can they take us seriously when the HFA is only meeting once a month? It is a huge bottleneck, but it is losing developers money, which will, in turn, lose developments and slow up delivery.

Across Dublin Bay North, we have land zoned, permission granted and development stalled. The Minister himself knows - both the local authorities, Dublin City Council, DCC, and Fingal, have spoken to me about this - where permissions exists the timelines are too weak and too many developers are sitting the land banks waiting for prices to rise. It is not doing any public good.

Something else I have spoken about previously is the vacant and derelict sites register. It is understaffed in Dublin. We have hundreds of houses boarded up. I have young mothers with children coming to me and right around the corner are houses that are boarded up. One of them gave me her permission. Carla Keegan is waiting there with her two children as a house down the road is there for a year boarded up. DCC and all the local authorities across Ireland need the vacant and derelict sites register to be enforced with more staff members and have key targets because sometimes, as Deputy McGrath mentioned, people who are not elected in these roles are not held accountable and then it is politicians who take the brunt of the public's rage when they do not have key targets for their workforce. I would like the Minister to put in key targets for civil servants.

I have mentioned the issue of private wires and how they would really help hundreds of times. The Minister knows himself that it is one of the most practical and urgent structural changes. Previous speakers have talked about water and electricity. New apartment developments of 300 units require 300 separate connections but if we can bring in private wires, not anything huge but under 5 MW, for developers to have one connection for those apartments, it would speed up the development. One key element is that, when built, they are owned by the residents.

Before I go off on a rant on this, I refer to the news that the Minister gave about the modular homes. Is it still to be the case that modular homes will be only for direct family members? If it is, I urge the him to look again at that. If people have room to build a modular home in the back of their garden, why should that only be for a family member when there is someone up or down the road who could help his or her son or there is a student coming here? We are trying to put as much possible in. I urge the Minister to look at that. It would really help and it would be the most beneficial. I do not understand why we limit modular builds to direct family members. It makes no sense.

I support the Bill. It is a part of wider reform. I welcome the engagement the Minister has had with me so far. I want to see him bring forward stronger measures to force activation, strengthen local authority capacity to get stuff done, and put delivery first.

We had a group in the audiovisual room today talking about building above shops. As I am a Dublin TD, I need to quickly mention this in the last ten seconds. The infrastructure is already there. We do not need private wires or more water connections. They already have connections underneath in the shops. If the Minister can bring in reform that would help above-shop development, it would really help.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to get the opportunity to talk on this important matter to allow extension of time for planning developments that are held up for one reason or another.

Indeed, we had this facility a few years ago, where applicants could get a second five years if they looked for it. The then Minister, in his wisdom, decided to stop that because he felt that developers were hoarding land, benefiting from time and gaining money without building any house. I hope that does not happen with this. It should be for people who have started or who intend to start and are coming to building the houses. Certainly, it hurt people with one-off houses badly when this extension of time of a second five years, was taken away from them a few years ago and I am glad that something like that is coming back now. Indeed, we have a facility in Kerry, even at the present time, where if people have started building, are up as far as the windowsills but will not have their house finished a month before the planning permission expires, they can be allowed a full year's permission to complete their house.

This strict urban-generated pressure clause is ruling many young boys and girls out of building a house in Kerry in places around Castleisland, Killarney, Killorglin, Kenmare and Dingle if they are out four or five miles from the town. These people were never coming out from town. They want to remain alongside their parents. They want to buy a site from a farmer locally. They are being deprived and denied the right to do that. That is wrong. I have spoken to the Minister privately. I have spoken to him at length in in the Chamber. I ask him to do something about that and ensure that these people get the chance to build their house. They are not asking for money or anything else. They are only asking for planning permission that I believe they are entitled to but, because of this clause, they are being ruled out. They are being stopped and denied and it is wrong. Many of these people who have failed to get in in the past few years have gone abroad. They have gone as far away as Australia and New Zealand because they could not build a house for themselves at home.

The local authorities should be empowered to build smaller standard-type houses or modular homes. I hope that the Minister will allow granny-type flats at the back of houses that the Government has spoken about, and continue with them, but it seems to be delaying a bit.

I ask young couples that are building their own homes to build them smaller and I ask the Government to encourage them to do so. There was a grant for houses that were built under 1,350 sq. ft in the 1970s and 1980s and people lived in them. Now they are building double that size and they are not using all the house but it is costing them fortunes more to build the house.

I plead with them to build smaller houses. They will save money and it will give them hope of getting going.

VAT on building materials should be removed or reduced. There is no VAT on building materials in the North of Ireland or in the UK. I ask the Government to seriously consider that due to the cost of building houses. When houses have gone over €400,000, they are costing too much and are putting a noose around a young family's neck they may never disentangle themselves from.

Councillor Johnny Healy-Rae and I have said at council meetings that zoning is a complete and absolute cod. Where there is a piece of ground that is fully serviced and has jumped the planning regulations, people should be allowed to build on it. It used to happen long ago and there was nothing wrong with it. Zoning is just a money-making racket for a pile of developers. It is giving developers who buy zoned land a monopoly to charge what they like for it because there is no competition across the way from someone else. They have that town or place to themselves and can charge what they like. We see what is happening in Dublin. The land is being zoned, developers are letting it stand there and when they get a bigger price for it, they sell it off and that person will also hold it. They are only hoarding land and blackguarding us. It is totally unsatisfactory. I ask the Minister to look at that, especially around smaller towns in County Kerry, in the places I mentioned such as Castleisland, Killarney, Kenmare, Killorglin and Dingle. It is very important people are allowed to build their own homes and given a chance to buy affordable homes.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all Deputies for their engagement on this Stage of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025. It is imperative that the Government takes all measures necessary to increase the supply of housing. Let me be clear that no single measure will solve the challenges we face on its own, but I firmly believe the combined effect of the measures being introduced through this Bill will have a significant and much-needed impact on the delivery of our housing supply.

We all recognise it is important that developers use their permissions Whether it is for housing or, for example, energy projects, to encourage developers to act quickly on their consents the Acts of 2024 provide that the duration can only be extended if the project has commenced. On planning permission for residential development, however, there is evidence to suggest a significant number of planning permissions for housing are due to expire shortly that have not yet been commenced. While planning permission is an essential step in any project, there are other factors that may impact on the commencement of the project, such as the availability of development finance, market viability, infrastructure constraints or phasing. By allowing holders of permissions to apply before the commencement of the development, we will address the issue of permissions that do not have enough time left to commence and be substantially completed before applying for an extension, as is currently the requirement.

I also note the measure being introduced is timebound. The application for the extension must be made within six months of the commencement of the legislation and the development must commence within 18 months of the commencement of the legislation. In line with existing provisions, a further application for an extension of up to two years may be made once a development is substantially complete. This provision has a sunset clause, which will expire in October 2027.

It is also important to note that an extension of duration may only be granted where an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment would not be required for the proposed extension of time. There is also evidence that a large number of permissions delayed due to judicial review proceedings now only have a limited time left. The new measure being introduced will allow the holders of permissions under the 2000 Act to apply to a planning authority for the suspension of the permission for a period of a judicial review, if the judicial review is upheld. It provides that where a permission was or is subject to judicial review, the holder of the permission may seek a suspension of time for the period the judicial review was or is ongoing. Retrospective applications for a suspension of duration may be made in respect of active permissions where a judicial review has concluded, provided that the person applying declares that the development did not substantially commence while the judicial review was ongoing.

As the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, mentioned, the implementation of the Planning and Development Act 2024 is a key priority for the Government. However, it is important that the planning system remains agile and responsive to issues. It is for this reason I am introducing measures to clarify the transitional arrangements that the development plan variations commenced under the 2000 Act can continue under that Act when the relevant provisions of the 2024 Act are commenced, with a similar provision for the local area plans that have been commenced under the 2000 Act. This will ensure that following approval of the revised national planning framework of 2025, which will facilitate the delivery in excess of 50,000 additional new homes per annum, the updated housing requirements can be incorporated into the planning system as quickly as possible. Local authorities will be required to update their current development plans over the coming months.

I will address some specific issues that were raised. The new apartment guidelines can apply to applications for permission that are not yet decided through use of further information requests. The Oireachtas joint committee briefing requested can be facilitated. My officials will engage with the Chair of that committee to organise this. The pre-legislative scrutiny waiver was agreed by the Oireachtas joint committee, given the urgent need to progress this legislation. A number of Deputies sought more information on the extension of duration to be submitted with the request. There are existing regulations that support the extension of duration provisions, which will apply to this amendment. The regulations provide that applications for extensions must be accompanied by information, including the date of the commencement of the development, the additional period required and the date works are expected to be completed. A number of queries were raised regarding Committee Stage amendments. These can be responded to as part of the Committee Stage discussions.

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, outlined the amendments I intend to bring forward in the Seanad, most of which are of a technical nature and relate to transitional arrangements as we move from the 2000 Act to the new Act. In addition to these amendments, I will bring forward amendments relating to apartment guidelines. As the new guidelines were only published today, it was not possible to include them in the published Bill.

As mentioned, this Government is committed to ensuring that housing is delivered as quickly as possible. It is vitally important we do all we can to support the developments that already have planning permission. This is another timebound provision, in this case for two years only, to encourage the activation of existing permissions rather than developers having to seek a new permission in such cases.

I thank all the Deputies for their engagement on this Bill. I look forward to discussing it again on Committee Stage.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Committee Stage will be taken tomorrow.